Interim endangered and threatened species recovery planning guidance Version 1.3

1822.pdf
[4.60 MB]
Link will provide options to open or save document.

File Format:

Adobe Reader

Interim
Endangered and Threatened Species
Recovery Planning Guidance
Version 1.3
National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East-West Hwy.
Silver Spring, MD 20910
and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Dr.
Arlington, VA 22203
Original (1.0): October 2004
Version 1.1: Updated July 2006 (acknowledgments; pp. i-v, x;
sections 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 8.0)
Version 1.2: Updated September 2007 (section 5.1 - disclaimer only)
Version 1.3: Updated June 2010 (section 2.1 only)
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Acknowledgments:
The National Marine Fisheries Service is grateful for the contribution of numerous U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service employees to the original writing and subsequent updating of this guidance. We
could not have completed it without their assistance.
Organization of the Document:
The Recovery Planning Guidance is designed in such a way as to facilitate its updating. The
original version was completed in October 2004. Subsequent updates are indicated with a new
date in the lower righthand corner of each chapter that has been updated. If a chapter has not
been updated, the original date will appear in the lower righthand corner of the document. In this
way, an individual can know if they have the latest version of each chapter by comparing it to the
version on our website, and can keep their hard copy updated without having to print the entire
document. We suggest that users of this guidance keep their hard copy in a three-ring binder.
The latest version of the guidance can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/.
Table of Contents - i
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Table of Contents
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
List of Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
List of Phone Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1.0 Purpose and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0-1
1.1 Why Develop Recovery Plans? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1-1
1.2 Legal and Policy Guidance for Recovery Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2-1
1.3 A Comprehensive Approach to Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3-1
1.3.1. The Ecosystem Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3-1
1.3.2 The Significance of Threats in Recovery Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3-1
1.3.3 Synergies with Other Parts of the ESA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3-2
1.3.4 Partnerships in Recovery Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3-2
1.4 Opportunities for Streamlining and Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4-1
1.5 Overview of the Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5-1
1.5.1 Timeframes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5-2
1.5.2 Agency Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5-3
2.0 Preplanning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1-1
2.1 Determining the Scope of the Recovery Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1-1
2.1.1 Single Species/Subspecies/DPS Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1-2
2.1.2 Multiple Species Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1-2
2.1.3 Ecosystem Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1-3
2.2 Special Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2-1
2.2.1 Exemption from Drafting Recovery Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2-1
2.2.2 Deferring Recovery Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2-1
2.2.3 Transnational and Transboundary Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2-2
2.2.4 Working with Native American Tribes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2-2
2.2.5 Integration of MMPA and ESA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2-5
2.3 Organizing the Recovery Planning Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-1
2.3.1 Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-2
2.3.2 Plan Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-3
2.3.2.1 Use of Alternative Recovery Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-3
2.3.2.2 Use of NMFS Biologists to Write Recovery Plans . . . . . . . 2.3-3
2.3.2.3 Use of Contractors to Write Recovery Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-4
2.3.2.4 Use of Recovery Teams to Write Recovery Plans . . . . . . . . 2.3-4
Table of Contents - ii
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
2.3.2.5 Use of Informal Meetings and Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-5
2.3.3 Appointing a Recovery Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-7
2.3.3.1 Statutory and Policy Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-7
2.3.3.2 Recovery Team Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-7
2.3.3.3 Appointing a Recovery Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-9
2.3.3.4 Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-9
2.3.4 Developing a Production Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-10
2.3.5 Setting Up the Administrative Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-10
2.4 Preparing for Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4-1
2.4.1 Identifying Key Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4-1
2.4.2 Options for Stakeholder Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4-2
3.0 The Recovery Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0-1
3.1 Definition and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1-1
3.2 Contents of the Recovery Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-1
3.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-2
3.2.2 Recovery status assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-2
3.2.3 Preliminary Recovery Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-4
3.2.4 Preplanning Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-6
3.3 Procedural Requirements and Timelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-1
3.3.1 Preparation of the Recovery Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-1
3.3.2 Review and Approval of the Recovery Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-1
3.3.3 Distribution and Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-1
3.3.4 Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-2
3.3.4.1 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-2
3.3.4.2 Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-2
3.3.5 Using/updating the Recovery Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-3
4.0 Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-1
4.1 Directing the Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-1
4.1.1 Effective Coordination and Management Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-1
4.1.2 Managing Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-1
4.1.3 Staying on track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-2
4.2 Managing a Recovery Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1
4.2.1 The Role of a Recovery Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1
4.2.2 Agency Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1
4.2.3 Recovery Team Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1
4.3 Managing Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-1
4.3.1 How to Create Effective Stakeholder Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-1
4.3.2 Methods for Involving Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-1
4.3.3 Strategies for Communicating with Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-3
4.3.3.1 Technology-based Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-3
4.3.3.2 Non-technology Based Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-4
4.3.3.3 Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-4
4.3.4 Legal Considerations for Interacting with Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-4
Table of Contents - iii
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
4.4 Public Communication and Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4-1
4.5 Monitoring considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-1
4.6 Information standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-1
4.7 Formatting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7-1
4.8 User Friendly/Plain English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8-1
4.9 Maintaining the Administrative Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9-1
5.0 The Recovery Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0-1
5.1 Contents of a recovery plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1
5.1.1 Title Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1
5.1.2 Disclaimer Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-2
5.1.3 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-3
5.1.4 Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-4
5.1.5 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-5
5.1.6 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-6
5.1.6.1 Brief Overview/Status of the Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-6
5.1.6.2 Species’ Description and Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-6
5.1.6.3 Populations Trends and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-7
5.1.6.4 Life History/Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-7
5.1.6.5 Habitat Characteristics/Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-7
5.1.6.6 Critical Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-8
5.1.6.7 Reasons for Listing / Threats Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-9
5.1.6.8 Conservation Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-9
5.1.6.9 Biological Constraints and Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-10
5.1.7 Recovery Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-10
5.1.7.1 Delineation of Recovery Units (optional) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-11
5.1.8 Recovery Goals, Objectives and Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-12
5.1.8.1 Recovery Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-13
5.1.8.2 Recovery Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-13
5.1.8.3 Recovery Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-13
5.1.9 Recovery Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-18
5.1.9.1 Threats Tracking Table (optional) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-19
5.1.9.2 Recovery Action Outline (= Stepdown Outline) . . . . . . . . 5.1-19
5.1.9.3 Recovery Action Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-20
5.1.10 Implementation Schedule and Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-26
5.1.11 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-28
5.1.12 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-30
5.2 Procedural Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
5.2.1 Plan Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
5.2.1.1 Information Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
5.2.1.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
5.2.1.3 Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
5.2.2 Review of Recovery Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-2
5.2.2.1 Technical Review (optional) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-2
5.2.2.2 Peer Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-2
5.2.2.3 Public Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-4
5.2.3 Incorporation of Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-5
Table of Contents - iv
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
5.2.4 Approval and Distribution Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-5
5.2.4.1 Distribution of Comments to Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-5
5.2.4.2 NMFS Approval and Distribution Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-5
6.0 Using and Updating the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0-1
6.1 Implementation, Monitoring, and Information Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1-1
6.1.1 Review of Recovery Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1-1
6.1.2 Reassessing Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1-1
6.2 Modifying the Recovery Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2-1
6.2.1 Plan Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2-2
6.2.2 Plan Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2-3
6.2.3 Plan Addenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2-3
6.3 Notification, Review, and Approval of Plan Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3-1
6.4 Continuing Involvement in the Recovery Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4-1
6.4.1 Maintaining the recovery team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4-1
6.4.2 Maintaining partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4-1
6.4.3 Maintaining public support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4-2
7.0 Emerging Ideas and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0-1
8.0 Recovery Planning References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0-1
Appendices - v
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Appendices
Appendix A. 1994 Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
Cooperative ESA Policies.
Appendix B. Relevant Recovery related court decisions.
Fund for Animals et al. v. Babbitt et al. – Grizzly Bear
Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Bruce Babbitt et al., - Sonoran Pronghorn
Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Norton et al. - Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard
SWCBD and Rio Grande Chapter of Trout Unlimited v. Babbitt - Gila Trout
Appendix C. Threats Assessment
Appendix D. Memorandum of Understanding Establishing The Canada/Mexico/United States
Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management.
Appendix E. Framework for Cooperation between the U.S. Department of Interior and
Environment Canada in the Protection and Recovery of Wild Species at Risk.
Appendix F. Tribal Coordination Documents
Joint Secretarial Order on American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act
Executive Order: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites
Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994: Government-to-Government
Relations With Native American Tribal Governments
American Indian and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S. Department of Commerce
Appendix G. Recovery Team Subgroups.
Scientific and Implementation Subgroup
Pacific Islands Ecoregion Recovery Advisory Network
Appendix H. Example Letters to Recovery Teams.
Appendix I. Terms of Reference for the Hawaiian Monk Seal.
Appendix K. Sample Recovery Outline.
Appendix L. Contractual Agreement for Drafting a Recovery Plan (to be added later)
Appendix M. Example Memorandum of Agreement between an Agency and a Recovery Team
Appendix N. Information Quality Guidelines
Appendix O. FWS National Outreach Strategy
Appendix P. FWS/NMFS Controlled Propagation policy
Appendix Q. Example Implementation Schedule.
Appendix R. Peer Review documents.
Appendix S. Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines
Appendix T. Notices of Availability of a draft Recovery Plan for review and comment
Appendix U. Notice of Availability of a final Recovery Plan
Appendix V. Linking Threats to Recovery Actions (Table and Tip sheet)
List of Figures - vi
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Recovery Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5-1
Figure 2. Sample Recovery Plan Title Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1
Figure 3. Sample Recovery Plan Disclaimer Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-2
Figure 4. Sample Recovery Plan Acknowledgments Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-3
Figure 5. Sample Recovery Plan Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-5
List of Tables - vii
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
List of Tables
Table 1. Timelines for Recovery Outline and Recovery Plan Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5-2
Table 2. NMFS Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5-3
Table 3. Required Contents of a Recovery Outline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-1
Table 4. Example Cost Estimates Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-4
List of Tables - viii
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
List of Boxes
Box 1.0 - 2002 Society for Conservation Biology Study of FWS Recovery Plans
and its application to the NMFS Recovery Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0-2
Box 1.2 - Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Criteria Legal Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2-3
Box 2.2 - Working with Local Tribes to Recover Salmon in the Pacific Northwest. . . . . . . 2.2-4
Box 2.3 The Recovery Planning Process for Pacific salmon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-2
Box 2.3.2.4 - Decision Point: Recovery Team or Not??. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-5
Box 2.3.2.5 - Use of informal planning by a Service Biologist: Endangered Wood Stork
Recovery Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-6
Box 2.3.3.3 - One Way to Construct a Recovery Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-9
Box 3.2.2 - 1 - Prompt Sheet for Biological Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-2
Box 3.2.2 - 2 - Prompt Sheet for Threats Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-3
Box 3.2.2 - 3 - Prompt Sheet for Conservation Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-4
Box 3.2.3 - 1 - Recovery Vision Prompt Sheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-5
Box 3.2.3 - 2 - Action Plan Prompt Sheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-5
Box 4.3.2 - Stakeholder Involvement with the Loggerhead Turtle Recovery Team. . . . . . . 4.3-3
Box 5.1.6.6 - Special Attributes of Critical Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-8
Box 5.1.6.7 - The five listing factors, as outlined in section 4 of the ESA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-9
Box 5.1.8.3 - 1 - When drafting recovery criteria, remember that they should be “SMART”.5.1-14
Box 5.1.8.3 - 2 - Examples of Recovery Criteria from the Piping Plover Recovery Plan,
revised, Jan. 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-14
Box 5.1.8.3 - 3 - Examples of Listing/recovery Factor-based Recovery Criteria. . . . . . . . . 5.1-15
Box 5.1.8.3 - 4 - The Gila Trout Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-17
Box 5.1.9.2 - Recovery Action Outline: Atlantic Coast Population of the Piping Plover . . 5.1-20
Acronyms - ix
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Acronyms
The following standard abbreviations for scientific/technical acronyms are found throughout this
document:
APA Administrative Procedure Act
DOI Department of the Interior
DPS Distinct Population Segment
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FR Federal Register
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HQ Headquarters Office (NMFS)
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (also known as NOAA Fisheries)
NOA Notice of Availability
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPR Office of Protected Resources (NMFS)
PVA Population Viability Analysis
RSRP Recovery Science Review Panel (Pacific salmon)
SCB Society for Conservation Biology
TRT Technical Recovery Team (Pacific salmon); Take Reduction Team (MMPA)
List of Phone Numbers - x
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
List of Phone Numbers
National Marine Fisheries Service
Headquarters Office of Protected Resources (Silver Spring MD)
Division of Endangered Species - 301-713-1401
Division of Marine Mammals - 301-713-2322
Northeast Regional Office (Gloucester, MA)
Office of Protected Resources - 978-281-9328
Southeast Regional Office (St. Petersburg, FL)
Office of Protected Resources - 727-824-5312
Northwest Regional Office (Portland, OR)
Office of Protected Resources - 503-736-4721
Southwest Regional Office (Long Beach, CA)
Main number - 562-980-4000
Pacific Islands Regional Office (Honolulu, HI)
Main number - 808-973-2937
Alaska Regional Office (Juneau, AK)
Main number - 907-586-7221
Purpose and Overview 1.0-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.0 Purpose and Overview
The purpose of this document is to guide the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
its partners in recovery planning under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)1. Although
every species has unique needs and
circumstances, this guidance strives to ensure
consistency in approach to the application of
statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements in
the development of recovery plans, to emphasize
certain aspects of planning, and to assist in
keeping plans useful and current. This
document has been developed by NMFS, and
once finalized, it will supersede the 1992 NMFS
Recovery Planning Guidelines (NMFS 1992)
and the joint Interagency Cooperative Policy on
Recovery Plan Participation and Implementation
Under the Endangered Species Act, which was
promulgated in 1994 (59 FR 34272; FWS and
NMFS 1994c).
Recovery planning has evolved considerably
over the years as we have learned more about
the root causes of endangerment and what it
takes to recover species. Species’ biological
needs and responses to specific threats and
recovery actions are myriad. However, certain
themes are repeated time and again, such as the
need to identify and mitigate the threats to a
species and to bolster its numbers and range in
order to assure sustainable recovery. This
guidance attempts to learn from and take
advantage of these commonalities while also
allowing for the flexibility necessary to tailor
species-specific recovery programs that
accommodate the unique biological capabilities
and needs of the species and address the specific
circumstances of its endangerment.
To achieve this breadth and flexibility, a
drafting team representing extensive recovery
experience in field, regional, and national
offices in the agency drew on their own
experience as well as on that of their peers and
the scientific literature (Box 1.0). The resultant
draft, thoroughly reviewed, reflects the recovery
experience of NMFS, as informed by the
scientific literature.
1The Marine Mammal Protection Act
requires the development of conservation plans
for ‘depleted’ marine mammals species (16
U.S.C. 1383b(b)). For species that are also
listed as threatened or endangered under the
ESA, the same plan may serve both purposes
(see section 2.2.5 Integration of MMPA and
ESA).
Purpose and Overview 1.0-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Purpose and Overview 1.1-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.1 Why Develop Recovery Plans?
A Recovery Plan is the road map to recovery.
Recovery is the process by which listed species
and their ecosystems are restored and their
future is safeguarded to the point that
protections under the ESA are no longer needed.
A variety of actions may be necessary to achieve
the goal of recovery, such as the ecological
restoration of habitat or implementation of
conservation measures with stakeholders.
However, without a plan to organize, coordinate
and prioritize the many possible recovery
actions, the effort may be inefficient or even
ineffective. Although recovery actions can, and
should, start immediately upon listing a species
as endangered or threatened under the ESA,
prompt development and implementation of a
recovery plan will ensure that recovery efforts
target limited resources effectively and
efficiently into the future. The recovery plan
serves as a road map for species recovery -- it
lays out where we need to go and how best to
get there. A recovery plan is one of the most
important tools to ensure sound scientific and
logistical decision-making throughout the
recovery process. Primarily, a recovery plan
should do the following:
• Delineate those aspects of the species’
biology, life history, and threats that are
pertinent to its endangerment and
recovery
• Outline and justify a strategy to achieve
recovery
• Identify the actions necessary to achieve
recovery of the species
• Identify goals and criteria by which to
measure the species’ achievement of
recovery
Recovery plans can also serve the following
secondary functions:
• Serve as outreach tools by articulating
the reasons for a species’ endangerment,
as well as why the particular suite of
recovery actions described is the most
effective and efficient approach to
achieving recovery for the species
• Help potential cooperators and partners
understand the rationale behind the
recovery actions identified, and assist
them in identifying how they can
facilitate the species’ recovery
• Serve as a tool for monitoring recovery
activities
• Be used to obtain funding for NMFS
and its partners by identifying necessary
recovery actions and their relative
priority in the recovery process
Recovery plans are guidance documents, not
regulatory documents. No agency or entity is
required by the ESA to implement the recovery
strategy or specific actions in a recovery plan.
However, the ESA clearly envisions recovery
plans as the central organizing tool for guiding
each species’ recovery process. They should
also guide Federal agencies in fulfilling their
obligations under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA,
which calls on all Federal agencies to “utilize
their authorities in furtherance of the purposes
of this Act by carrying out programs for the
conservation of endangered species and
threatened species...” In addition to outlining
strictly proactive measures to achieve the
species’ recovery, plans provide context and a
framework for implementation of other
provisions of the ESA with respect to a
particular species, such as section 7(a)(2)
consultations on Federal agency activities,
development of Habitat Conservation Plans or
Safe Harbor agreements under section 10,
special rules for threatened species under
section 4(d), or the creation of experimental
populations in accordance with section 10(j).
Purpose and Overview 1.2-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.2 Legal and Policy Guidance for Recovery
Planning
Recovery planning is guided by the statutory
language of the ESA and NMFS policies, the
latter of which may reflect interpretation by the
courts (see Box 1.2), and informed by various
other Federal laws. There are no specific
regulations regarding recovery.
The Statute – Section 4(f) of the ESA addresses
the development and implementation of
recovery plans. The following are the key
provisions of this section of the Act:
• 4(f)(1) - Recovery plans shall be
developed and implemented for listed
species unless the Secretary “. . . finds
that such a plan will not promote the
conservation of the species” (see section
2.2.1 - Exemption from Drafting
Recovery Plans).
• 4(f)(1)(A) - Priority is to be given, to
the maximum extent practicable, to “. .
.species, without regard to taxonomic
classification, that are most likely to
benefit from such plans, particularly
those species that are, or may be, in
conflict with construction or other
development projects or other forms of
economic activity.”
• 4(f)(1)(B) - Each plan must include, to
the maximum extent practicable,
“(i) a description of such site-specific
management actions as
may be necessary to achieve the
plan’s goal for the conservation
and survival of the species;
(ii) objective, measurable
criteria which, when met, would
result in a determination . . . that
the species be removed from the
list; and,
(iii) estimates of the time
required and the cost to carry
out those measures needed to
achieve the plan’s goal and to
achieve intermediate steps
toward that goal.”
• 4(f)(2) - To assist in the development
and implementation of recovery plans,
NMFS may appoint recovery teams,
which may include non-NMFS
participants, and which are not subject
to the requirements of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
• 4(f)(4) - NMFS must “. . . provide
public notice and an opportunity for
public review and comment. . .” and
“. . . consider all information presented
during the public comment period prior
to approval of the plan.”
• 4(f)(5) - Prior to implementation of a
recovery plan, each Federal agency
must “. . .consider all information
presented during the public comment
period. . .”
• 4(h)(4) - NMFS shall establish, and
publish in the Federal Register, agency
guidelines that include “ . . . a system
for developing and implementing, on a
priority basis, recovery plans. . .”
Recovery Policies – Five joint policies were
promulgated by NMFS and FWS in 1994 which,
among other things, address a number of aspects
of recovery planning. These include the
following:
• Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer
Review in Endangered Species
Activities (59 FR 34270; FWS and
NMFS 1994a)
• Interagency Cooperative Policy on
Information Standards Under the
Endangered Species Act (59 FR 24271;
FWS and NMFS 1994b)
• Interagency Cooperative Policy on
Recovery Plan Participation and
Implementation Under the Endangered
Species Act (59 FR 34272; FWS and
NMFS 1994c)
• Interagency Cooperative Policy for the
Ecosystem Approach to the Endangered
Species Act (59 FR 34274; FWS and
NMFS 1994d)
• Interagency Cooperative Policy
Regarding the Role of State Agencies in
Endangered Species Act Activities (59
FR 34275; FWS and NMFS 1994e)
Purpose and Overview 1.2-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Box 1.2 - Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Criteria Legal Case
In Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F.Supp. 2d 121 (2001), the court ruled that “... the Fish
and Wildlife Service has acted in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law by
issuing a Recovery Plan that fails to establish (1) objective measureable criteria, which, when
met, would result in a determination that the pronghorn may be removed from the list of
endangered species or, if such criteria are not practicable, an explanation of that conclusion and
(2) estimates of the time required to carry out those measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal
and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal where practicable, or, if such estimates are
not practicable, an explanation of that conclusion.”
Th courts remanded the 1998 Final Revised Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan and directed the
Service to: (1) reassess Sonoran pronghorn recovery criteria and incorporate objective
measureable criteria for delisting; and (2) provide estimates of time required to carry out those
measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal and intermediate steps toward that goal.
The Policy on Recovery Plan Participation and
Implementation Under the Endangered Species
Act focuses solely on recovery planning and
implementation, and is updated and superceded
by this policy and guidance. The other 1994
joint policies, which apply to recovery as well
as other aspects of the endangered species
program, are incorporated into, but not
superceded by, this guidance. Copies are
included in Appendix A. Several other policies
and guidance documents affect various aspects
of recovery planning. For example, the Safe
Harbor Policy (64 FR 32717; FWS and NMFS
1999) provides a tool that may be useful in the
recovery of some species. The application of
these other policies to recovery planning will be
addressed in other sections of the Recovery
Handbook.
Court Decisions – A number of court decisions
have interpreted the recovery planning
provisions of the ESA in conjunction with
challenges to particular recovery plans (see
Appendix B). These decisions have focused
primarily on the mandatory nature of the section
4(f) provisions (unless the agency had shown
that the species qualified under an exception),
and the connection between threats affecting the
species and the development of measurable
criteria and management actions (see Box 1.2)
Other Federal Laws – In addition to the ESA,
there are five other Federal statutes that are
particularly important to developing and
implementing recovery plans, assembling the
administrative record, and involving the public.
• The Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA; 5 U.S.C. 552), enacted in 1966,
provides that any person has the right to
request access to Federal agency
records.
• The Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA; 5 U.S.C., App.; C.F.R. Part
102-3), enacted in 1972, governs the
establishment, management, and
operation of groups, meetings, task
forces, committees, and other similar
groups that qualify as “federal advisory
committees” under the Act.
• The Administrative Procedure Act
(APA; 5 U.S.C. 551-59, 701-06, 1305,
3105, 3344, 5372, 7521), passed in
1946, identifies the process for making
regulations, provides for participation
by the public in the rulemaking process,
and sets standards for judicial review of
agency decisions.
• The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.,),
passed in 1969, assures that all branches
of government give proper
consideration to the environment prior
to undertaking any major federal action
which significantly affects the
environment.
• The Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501-20), enacted in 1995,
Purpose and Overview 1.2-3
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
minimizes the burden that
Federal paperwork imposes on
the public and improves the
quality and use of Federal
information.
• The Information Quality Act (Pub. L.
106-554), enacted in 2002 requires each
Federal agency to develop guidelines to
ensure the quality of disseminated
information and a process by which a
person can seek a correction of
disseminated information (see section
4.6 Information Standards, and
Appendix N. Information Quality
Guidelines).
In summary, with respect to recovery planning,
we have certain statutory requirements as well
as other requirements imposed by either policy
or court decisions. This statutory, policy, and
judicial guidance requires certain elements to be
included in a plan and incorporates certain
standard elements into the process of drafting
plans (consultation, quality data, public
participation etc.). Within these sideboards,
NMFS and its staff are given considerable
discretion to determine the details of how we go
about developing specific recovery plans and
what they look like. Recovery planners should
view this as an opportunity to use their
creativity and ingenuity to craft the most
effective and practical recovery program for
each species in their care.
Purpose and Overview 1.3-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.3 A Comprehensive Approach to Recovery
Species do not live in a vacuum. They interact
with, depend upon, or affect other species and
their environments. Understanding the
interactions between species and their
ecosystems is fundamental to recovery planning.
Recovery plans should be useful to all NMFS
biologists who implement the ESA, such as
those working on consultations or HCPs, as well
as all agencies or individuals that may affect the
species. Likewise, even the best of plans may
achieve little for species recovery if they are not
implemented because they are not practical, they
are misunderstood, or they are opposed by those
with the authority or means to implement them.
To ensure lasting recovery, this planning
guidance takes a comprehensive approach to
species recovery on multiple scales – within the
ecosystem, within the ESA, within NMFS, with
other agencies, and with stakeholders and the
public.
1.3.1. The Ecosystem Approach
In recognition of the role that other species and
their environments play in species recovery, the
ESA clearly states that one of its purposes is to:
“... provide a means whereby the ecosystems
upon which endangered species and threatened
species depend may be conserved ...” (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq., section 2(a)). Indeed, conserving
species’ ecosystems appears first in the list of
the ESA’s purposes. The role of the ecosystem
is stressed further in the Interagency
Cooperative Policy for the Ecosystem Approach
to the Endangered Species Act (FWS and
NMFS 1994d). Wherever possible, recovery
plans should focus on the broader view of the
species’ health, by working to ensure the health
of its habitat and ecosystem functions, rather
than the narrower view of looking at the species
only. As implied in the ESA, conserving the
ecosystems upon which a species depends is
more likely to ensure that species’ long-term
viability. In keeping with the ESA’s directive,
this guidance focuses not only on the listed
species themselves but also on restoring their
habitats as functioning ecosystems.
1.3.2 The Significance of Threats in
Recovery Planning
Recovery plans have long focused on the
demographics, habitat and other characteristics
of a species’ life history. These are extremely
important, as knowledge of a species’ biological
needs and constraints is imperative to making
viable conservation management decisions for a
species. However, merely increasing a species’
numbers, range and abundance does not ensure
its long term health and sustainability; only by
alleviating threats can lasting recovery be
achieved. Identification of, and strategies for
dealing with, the threats that are contributing to
the status of the species as threatened or
endangered, or are likely to recur in the
foreseeable future, should be central to the
recovery plan and program. A recovery plan
must also outline the characteristics of a species
that make it vulnerable to, and that would allow
it to recover from, environmental, demographic,
and human-caused threats. Finally, recovery
actions and monitoring schemes should
specifically reduce or remove each of the threats
identified for the species, and monitor the
success in controlling them.
The reasons for a species’ decline often
comprise an interrelated, interactive suite of
factors, rather than a linear cause-and-effect of a
single factor. Therefore, a recovery plan must
not only identify the different threats, but also
analyze and determine the relationships among
threats so that a recovery strategy can be
designed to effectively reduce these threats. A
threats assessment can be used in recovery
planning to determine the relative importance of
various threats to a species (see section 5.1.6.7,
Reasons for Listing/Threats, and Appendix C).
A threats assessment includes (1) identifying
threats and their sources, (2) determining the
effects of threats, and (3) ranking each threat
based on relative effects. This guidance
recommends using a threats assessment for
species with multiple threats to help identify the
relative importance of each threat to the species’
status, and, therefore, to prioritize recovery
actions in a manner most likely to be effective
for the species’ recovery.
Purpose and Overview 1.3-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.3.3 Synergies with Other Parts of the ESA
While section 4(f) and 7(a)(1) are the only
sections of the ESA that focus solely on
recovery, it is fair to say that all sections of the
ESA affect the goal of recovery of listed
species, in one way or another. With this in
mind, this guidance highlights potential
synergies between recovery and other sections
of the ESA (sections 7(a)(2), 10, 6, etc.). The
resulting plans should provide a context and
framework for guiding implementation of the
other provisions of the ESA with respect to the
target species.
1.3.4 Partnerships in Recovery Planning
A plan is just that: a plan. For results, the plan
must be implemented. NMFS has neither the
resources nor the authority to implement many,
if not most, recovery actions. Communication,
coordination, and collaboration with a wide
variety of potential stakeholders are essential to
the acceptance and implementation of recovery
plans. In addition, recovery plans must be
designed so that all players, whether they were
involved in writing the plan or not, understand
the rationale behind the recovery program, buy
into this program, and recognize their role in its
implementation. As policies indicate, NMFS is
committed to working with stakeholders
throughout the entire recovery process, from
planning through implementation to recovery
and delisting. For the purposes of recovery
planning, we define the term stakeholder
broadly as those who have an interest in the
recovery of the species. This may include other
bureaus within NMFS, other government
agencies, affected landowners, academic
scientists, conservation organizations, industry,
etc. The addition of these participants may
sometimes make the planning process more
complicated and time-consuming. However,
involving stakeholders early and throughout the
process may help achieve necessary
understanding of the species’ biology, threats
and recovery needs, identify and resolve
implementation issues and concerns at the
planning stage, increase buy-in, and facilitate
more effective implementation (see sections 2.4,
Preparing for Stakeholder Involvement, and 4.3,
Managing Stakeholder Involvement).
Purpose and Overview 1.4-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.4 Opportunities for Streamlining and
Flexibility
The guidance notes throughout where
opportunities exist to streamline recovery plans,
e.g., by incorporating other documents by
reference and reducing tangential or irrelevant
information. One opportunity for streamlining
that will provide a means of keeping our
recovery plans current and useful in the most
efficient way possible, involves the use of a
page numbering system such as that used in this
guidance (see section 4.7, Formatting). Such a
system allows for revisions or updates of
individual sections of the plan more frequently
without the need to undertake a major plan
revision effort (see section 6.2, Modifying the
Recovery Plan). Another opportunity lies in the
use of electronic media and the posting of
electronic files. This should greatly enhance our
ability to distribute information and post plan
updates and addenda (see section 5.2.4,
Approval and Distribution Process, and section
6.3, Notification, Review, and Approval of Plan
Modifications).
With respect to streamlining the actual recovery
planning process, however, two particular areas
of planning standout as needing, if anything,
additional attention and time. These are early
communication and coordination (see sections
2.3, Organizing the Recovery Planning Effort;
2.4, Preparing for Stakeholder Involvement; 4.3,
Managing Stakeholder Involvement in the
Planning Process; and 4.4, Public
Communication and Outreach), and the thought
process involved with synthesizing the
background information into a cohesive,
effective recovery strategy and program (see
section 5.1.7, Recovery Strategy, and section
5.1.9, Recovery Program). Indeed, this
guidance strongly encourages additional time
and attention for each of these areas. While this
may appear to be an added burden and contrary
to the concept of streamlining, this early
investment in these parts of the process is
anticipated to actually front-load the recovery
process and facilitate smoother and more rapid
implementation.
Purpose and Overview 1.5-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.5 Overview of the Planning Process
The recovery process comprises a suite of inter-related
steps that fall generally into the
following three primary phases: (1) pre-planning;
(2) planning; and (3) implementation
and monitoring (Figure 1). In the pre-planning
phase, a recovery outline is developed (see
section 3.0, The Recovery Outline). The
recovery outline provides interim strategies and
goals for recovering the species and lays out
how and by whom a recovery plan is to be
developed. The outline may also note the rare
case that a species is exempt from recovery
planning (see section 2.2.1, Exemption from
Drafting Recovery Plans). The planning phase
involves the actual writing of the recovery plan,
including the solicitation and incorporation of
comments via peer review and public comment
(see section 4.0, Planning Considerations
Purpose and Overview 1.5-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
(inclusive); and section 5.2, Procedural
Requirements). The implementation and
monitoring phase involves the implementation
of the recovery actions called for in the recovery
plan or outline (if a plan has not been developed
yet), monitoring of implementation and
effectiveness of the actions, and adaptation of
the plan, if necessary (see section 6.1 for a brief
overview of implementation and monitoring.
These will be dealt with in greater detail in other
sections of the Recovery Handbook). Periodic
review of the status of the species and of the
recovery plan may lead to updates or revisions
of the recovery plan (see section 6.2, Modifying
the Recovery Plan) and/or downlisting or
delisting of the species.
These phases are not step-wise or mutually
exclusive; rather, they are in a continuous state
of flow and feedback. Implementation and
monitoring often begin before a plan, or even an
outline, is completed and plans are updated or
revised as needed, according to the results of
monitoring. In some cases, a planning process
may need to return to the pre-planning phase,
e.g., when a complete revision of the recovery
plan is needed and a determination of how to
develop the plan must be revisited.
1.5.1 Timeframes
Recovery outlines should be completed within
60 days of listing, and approved within 90 days
of listing. These are completed internally, by
agency biologists, in consultation with other
biologists (those who worked on the listing and
those who will be working on consultations or
HCPs) as well as species experts, and possibly
some stakeholders. The recovery outline is an
interim document that is based on the best
currently available information – usually the
listing package. The short time-frame allowed
for completion of the recovery outline is
purposeful. It is meant to ensure that its
completion will not detract from the recovery
planning effort that should be underway shortly
after the species is listed. The timing of the
outline is meant to force biologists who will be
responsible for the writing of the recovery plan,
consulting on the species, or otherwise working
with the species to communicate with each other
and put preliminary strategies for recovering the
species on paper as soon as feasible. Not only
will this ‘get the ball rolling’ for development of
the recovery plan, but a timely recovery outline
can inform ongoing activities, such as HCP
development and section 7 consultation, so these
activities do not inadvertently foreclose
recovery options before the recovery plan is
developed.
Final recovery plans should be completed within
2.5 years of listing, unless an extension for a
particularly complex plan has been approved by
the Headquarters office. In order to reach this
time frame, drafts should be completed within
1.5 years of listing. Table 1 describes the
required timeframes for recovery planning.
Table 1. Timeframes for Recovery Outline and
Recovery Plan Development
60 days from date of
listing
Recovery outline
completed and submitted
to Regional Office
90 days from date of
listing
Recovery outline
approved
18 months from date
of listing
Draft recovery plan
completed and distributed
for public comment and
peer review
2.5 years (30 months)
from date of listing
Final recovery plan
completed and approved
Purpose and Overview 1.5-3
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.5.2 Agency Roles and Responsibilities
The following table outlines the general responsibilities of the Regions and Headquarters Office for
NMFS.
Table 2. NMFS Roles and Responsibilities
Regional Administrator Headquarters
Provide guidelines and training on national policy and
legal requirements of recovery planning.
Prepare and approve a Recovery Outline for any listed
species for which the Region has lead – draft within 60
days from final listing rule publication; approval within
90 days. Provide copy to Headquarters.
Review draft Recovery Outline from region for major
policy issues or controversies. Prepare and approve a
Recovery Outline for listed species for which Protected
Resources has lead – draft within 60 days from final
listing rule publication; approval within 90 days.
Publish Notice of intent to prepare a recovery plan and
request information in Federal Register (for species
with regional lead).
Publish Notice of intent to prepare a recovery plan and
request information in Federal Register (for species
with Headquarters lead).
Establish recovery teams, if appropriate, to develop the
recovery plan and oversee its implementation.
Establish recovery teams, if appropriate, to develop the
recovery plan and oversee its implementation (for
species with Headquarters lead).
Prepare draft and final recovery plans. Prepare draft and final recovery plans (for species with
Headquarters lead).
Review and provide comments to regions on the
technical/agency draft of new or revised plans
regarding adherence to existing policies and guidelines.
Ensure appropriate peer review, public review and
comment.
Ensure appropriate peer review, public review and
comment (for species with Headquarters lead).
Obtain concurrence by Headquarters. Approve and
disseminate all recovery plans. Print within 90 days of
approval; distribute within 120 days, subject to
availability of funds.
Approve and disseminate all recovery plans (for
species with Headquarters lead). Print within 90 days
of approval; distribute within 120 days, subject to
availability of funds.
Release to press and or publish a public notice of
availability of new or revised recovery plans. Provide
copy to Headquarters.
Release to press and or publish a public notice of
availability of new or revised recovery plans (for
species with Headquarters lead).
Direct and coordinate recovery plan implementation or
take actions to conserve listed species if plan is not
completed. Track and review progress.
Direct and coordinate recovery plan implementation or
take actions to conserve listed species if plan is not
completed for species (for species with Headquarters
lead). Track and review progress.
Revise and update recovery plans, as necessary.
Inform all cooperators of modifications in the plan.
Revise and update recovery plans, as necessary (for
species with Headquarters lead). Inform all
cooperators of modifications in the plan.
Maintain national website with updated recovery plans
Report to Headquarters on status of recovery plans,
recovery implementation, and status of the species.
Compile regional and Headquarters reports on
recovery implementation progress, species status, and
the status of draft, revised or approved recovery plans
for Assistant Administrator’s submission to Congress.
Preplanning Considerations 2.1-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
2.0 Preplanning Considerations
Before beginning work on a recovery plan, a
number of preliminary decisions must be made
and actions must be taken. These decisions set
the stage for recovery planning and encompass
considerations such as the scope of the plan,
logistical issues, interim management of the
species until a recovery plan is completed,
participation in the planning process, appointing
a recovery team, and setting up the administrative
record for the recovery process. The Recovery
Outline (see section 3.0) provides a template for
documenting preplanning decisions.
2.1 Determining the Scope of the Recovery
Plan
Single-species recovery plans have been the most
common type of plan prepared since the
enactment of the ESA. However, multiple
species plans and ecosystem plans have gained
increasing currency since the mid-1990s. It is
important to note that, although the ESA appears
to focus on the individual species, subspecies, or
distinct population segments (DPSs)2, the
purposes of the ESA include conserving the
ecosystems upon which listed species depend.
Recovery plans should aim to address threats by
restoring or protecting ecosystem functions or
processes whenever and wherever possible (as
opposed to actions that require long-term and
possibly expensive management programs).
This approach is science-based and provides a
means for required habitat to be maintained long-term
in a dynamic way by natural processes. This
broader perspective should be infused into all
recovery plans, whether they be for single species
(including subspecies and DPSs), or multiple
species.
Three possible biological scopes for recovery
efforts exist, and choosing the appropriate scope
requires careful consideration:
• Single species/subspecies/DPS
• Multiple species
• Ecosystem
A fourth scope, recovery plans for individual
populations of a wide-ranging species (such as
peregrine falcons and bald eagles), was used
occasionally in the past. Because this has led to
problems later in the process, we now recommend
that planning documents for entities smaller than
the listed entity should only be developed in the
context of recovery of the entire listed entity,
using recovery criteria clearly set out for the entire
listed entity (see section 2.1.1, Single
Species/Subspecies/DPS Plans, for further
discussion).
The appropriate scope for the recovery planning
effort may be evident from the listing package
(whether it was prepared for a single species, a
group of species, or for multiple species within an
imperiled ecosystem). However, there may be
circumstances where it is appropriate to plan
recovery at a different scope than that at which the
species was listed, for such reasons as the
following:
• If a species is without a recovery plan and
occupies the same habitat and has similar
recovery needs as another species or
group of species, it may be possible to
incorporate the species into a recovery
plan for the other species. This can be
done when a recovery plan is being
written for the other species or by
incorporating recovery criteria,
management actions, and time and cost
estimates for the new species into an
existing plan by preparing an amendment
2 A Distinct Population Segment is a
population segment that is discrete in relation to
the remainder of the species to which it belongs,
and significant to the species to which it belongs.
An Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of
Pacific Salmon is considered a DPS. DPSs must
be designated through a rulemaking. See the
Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the
Endangered Species Act (FWS and NOAA 1996)
for more discussion of discreteness and
significance.
Preplanning Considerations 2.1-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
to the existing plan (see section
6.2.3, Plan Addenda).
• In some cases, it may be preferable to
prepare a plan for a single species which
was listed in the same listing rule as
other species. This may occur, for
instance, when circumstance dictates a
need to prepare immediately a plan for a
particular species because unique
taxonomy, threats, or other reasons
indicate the need for more species-specific
recovery strategies, or if an
opportunity arises for a particular species
expert to expedite planning.
• If a number of species that occupy the
same ecosystem were listed separately, it
may be most efficient and effective to
prepare a multiple-species or ecosystem
plan. Multiple-species plans may
provide the opportunity to explicitly
address any contradictory recovery needs
of two or more species. In addition,
including numerous species within an
area in one plan can be more user-friendly
for local property owners and
planners. Plan revisions may provide an
opportunity to combine species that were
previously addressed in separate plans or
that do not have plans. However, it is
necessary to ensure that species included
in a multiple-species plan are each given
adequate and appropriate attention.
2.1.1 Single Species/Subspecies/DPS Plans
Given that taxa are listed and delisted as
“species” (defined in the ESA as including
subspecies and DPSs), a single species plan is the
most straightforward scope to use for an
individual planning effort. If the species is
distinct from other listed species in its
floral/faunal community with respect to its
habitat requirements and threats and/or if it is the
only listed species in its general geographic area,
a single-species plan is likely the most
appropriate.
Although a DPS is treated as a separate species
under the ESA and thus may have a separate
recovery plan, it is important to note that a
recovery plan cannot be used to designate a DPS.
Designation of a DPS requires a rulemaking
process.
2.1.2 Multiple Species Plans
If two or more species occur in the same
geographical area or jurisdiction, and share
common threats or management needs, a multiple
species plan may be the most appropriate. This
type of plan may also be helpful when species
with overlapping ranges have seemingly
contradictory recovery needs that need to be
resolved early to accommodate the recovery of
both species. Many authors have recommended
multiple-species recovery plans as a way to plan
more efficiently and to better implement
management actions (Franklin 1993; Clark 1994;
Tear et al. 1995; Carroll et al. 1996; Simberloff
1997). Despite this, a comprehensive study of
recovery plans conducted by the Society for
Conservation Biology (SCB) concluded that the
multiple species plans that were approved as of
2000 paid less attention to the individual listed
species included in each plan compared with
single species plans (Clark and Harvey 2002).
The SCB study found that individual listed species
in multiple-species plans had less robust scientific
underpinning, objectives, and recommendations,
and that trends in status for individual species
tended to be less positive than those for species
with single-species recovery plans. Therefore, the
benefits of preparing a multiple-species plan
should be carefully assessed, and the following
considerations should be kept in mind:
• Each listed species in the plan should be
fully addressed in terms of status, threats,
and biological needs and constraints (this
does not mean that these items need be
addressed for each species separately but
that a reader should be able to discern
each species’ status, threats, etc., easily
from the information provided).
• Objective, measurable recovery criteria
must be developed for each species,
Preplanning Considerations 2.1-3
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
although it may be possible for
the same criteria to apply to
more than one species where the
threats are identical.
• Recovery actions should be consolidated
for multiple species whenever possible to
maximize effectiveness, but should
indicate which species will be affected.
• Individual species can be independently
listed, reclassified, or delisted, and the
plan updated or revised accordingly.
• In general, multiple-species plans will be
more expansive documents, and means
for keeping them updated and useful
should be considered during the planning
process.
2.1.3 Ecosystem Plans
If several listed species in a shared biotic
community rely on protection and/or restoration
of their ecosystem to reach recovery, an
ecosystem plan may be appropriate. (Many
recovery plans identified as "ecosystem" plans in
the past are actually multiple-species plans). In
this type of plan, most recovery actions will be
directed toward ensuring the sustainability of the
ecosystem upon which all of the listed species
(and other species) depend. While ecosystem
functions and status comprise the cornerstone of
this type of plan, the role and recovery needs of
individual listed species must be addressed
within the ecosystem context. The biological
connection between the ecosystem and the listed
species should be clearly described. Recovery
objectives and criteria, including those linked to
the threats that were the basis for listing, must be
provided on a species by species basis, although
ecosystem-based criteria may be included as
well. One of the few examples of an ecosystem
plan is the Recovery Plan for the Endangered and
Threatened Species of Ash Meadows (FWS
1990).
Preplanning Considerations 2.2-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
2.2 Special Considerations
2.2.1 Exemption from Drafting Recovery
Plans
Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA requires NMFS to
develop and implement recovery plans for
species listed as endangered or threatened,
“unless [the Service] finds such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species.” (ESA,
section 4(f)(1)) There are very few acceptable
justifications for an exemption from having a
recovery plan, and a determination that an
exemption is warranted should be well
documented in the administrative record. The
determination that a plan will not promote the
conservation of the listed species must be
approved by the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries (NMFS). Foreign species (species
whose historic and current ranges occur entirely
under the jurisdiction of other countries) qualify
for the exemption.
The following justifications may exempt species
from having a recovery plan:
• Delisting is anticipated in the near future
because (1) the species is presumed to be
extinct or (2) the species is determined to
have been listed in error, possibly due to
new taxonomic or status information.
• The species’ current and historic ranges
occur entirely under the jurisdiction of
other countries, i.e., it is a foreign
species. Generally, the U.S. has little
authority to implement actions needed to
recover foreign species, and therefore, a
recovery plan would not promote the
conservation of these species. While
importation into the U.S. and the
commercial transportation or sale in
foreign commerce of such species by any
person subject to U.S. jurisdiction are
prohibited unless authorized, the taking
of listed species is prohibited only within
the U.S., within the territorial seas of the
U.S., and on the high seas. The
management and recovery of listed
foreign species remain the responsibility
of the countries in which the species
occur, with the help of available technical
and monetary assistance from the U.S.
• Other circumstances that are not easily
foreseen, but in which the species would
not benefit from a recovery plan.
In the past, existence of an alternative plan was
used to justify an exemption from having a
recovery plan, but this guidance considers
adoption of an alternative plan a streamlining
method of recovery plan preparation (see section
2.3.2.1, Use of Alternative Recovery Plans).
It should be noted that an exemption does not
exempt NMFS from preparing for recovery of the
species. At a minimum, a recovery outline
(section 3.0) should be prepared for every
domestic listed species.
2.2.2 Deferring Recovery Planning
There are some circumstances in which it may be
necessary to defer the development of a recovery
plan via an exemption approved by the
Headquarters office. A plan cannot be deferred
indefinitely, however, and a recovery outline,
however general, should be prepared if at all
possible. Circumstances in which a plan may be
deferred include the following:
• A need exists to resolve taxonomic
questions because new taxonomic
information has come to light since listing
and the resolution of the taxonomic
question is expected to have a substantial
bearing on the recovery planning process.
• The best available scientific information
indicates that the species may be extinct,
and therefore development of a recovery
plan is not prudent unless and until the
species’ existence/extinction is confirmed.
If the species is later discovered to exist,
recovery planning should commence
promptly. In the meantime, a recovery
outline can guide surveys and should
include a contingency plan in the case of
re-discovery of the species. In this case,
the species may be only temporarily
Preplanning Considerations 2.2-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
exempt from the recovery
planning requirement.
2.2.3 Transnational and Transboundary
Species
For purposes of this guidance, transnational
species are those listed species with geographical
ranges both within the U.S. and within one or
more international borders. This can be due to
migration or because the resident population
straddles the border of the U.S. and one or more
other countries. For transnational species, it is
important to consider appointing one or more
recovery team members from the other nation(s).
If a representative from the other nation(s) is not
appointed to the team, regular communication
and cooperation with appropriate agencies in the
other nation is important. It is also possible that
individuals or representatives of agencies or
interest groups from these nations be invited to
attend recovery team meetings as observers. For
the development of reclassification or delisting
criteria, an early decision must be made as to
whether individuals of the species that occur
outside the U.S. or management actions taken
outside the U.S. are necessary in order to achieve
the recovery goal (keeping in mind that recovery
criteria should be based on the biological needs
of the species). If management actions outside
the U.S. are necessary, early and continuing
international cooperation is very important.
Transboundary species comprise a special case of
transnational species. Canada, Mexico and the
U.S. are all parties to the Memorandum of
Understanding Establishing the
Canada/Mexico/United States Trilateral
Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem
Conservation and Management (Trilateral
Agreement; Appendix D). Article III of the
Trilateral Agreement states that the Trilateral
Committee will... “develop, implement, review
and coordinate specific cooperative conservation
projects and programs; and integrate its projects
and programs into the conservation priorities of
the country in which those projects and programs
take place.” The FWS International Affairs
Office - Division of International Conservation
coordinates the Trilateral meetings, although
NMFS is also involved. For NMFS, questions
with regard to treatment of transboundary species
can be directed to the Office of Protected
Resources. (See the list of phone numbers in the
front of this guidance.)
A similar agreement exists between Canada and
the United States, entitled the Framework for
Cooperation between the U.S. Department of the
Interior and Environment Canada in the Protection
and Recovery of Wild Species at Risk
(Framework; Appendix E). The Framework aims
to exchange information and technical expertise,
evaluate the status of species, promote increased
partnerships between the countries, identify
species needing bilateral action, and “promote the
development and implementation of joint or multi-national
recovery plans for species identified as
endangered or threatened.” Starting in 2001, both
NMFS and Department of Fisheries and Oceans
(DFO) Canada are participating in bilateral
Framework meetings hosted by DOI and
Environment Canada in order to facilitate bilateral
protection and recovery of marine species. The
FWS contact for the Framework is the
Washington Office of Endangered Species, which
should be kept informed of new recovery efforts
with Canada to facilitate coordination. NMFS
headquarters may be contacted regarding
questions on marine species, but NMFS has been
working through FWS on Framework issues.
2.2.4 Species Occurring on Tribal Lands
Although Native American Tribes share the
general goal of conserving endangered and
threatened species on their lands, Tribal lands are
not Federal public lands, and NMFS has special
responsibility to address listed species in
accordance with the following principles:
• Respect Tribal rights
• Acknowledge the treaty obligations of the
United States towards Tribes
• Use the government-to-government
relationship in dealing with Tribes
• Protect natural resources that the Federal
government holds in trust for Tribes
Preplanning Considerations 2.2-3
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
• Solicit and utilize the expertise of
affected Indian Tribes by having tribal
representation on recovery teams, as
appropriate
• Work cooperatively with affected Tribes
to identify and implement recovery
Departmental and Executive policies related to
tribes are contained in Appendix F and include
the following: Joint Secretarial Order on
American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act (Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce 1997); American
Indian and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S.
Department of Commerce (1995); Executive
Order on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (2000); Executive
Order on Indian Sacred Sites (1996); Presidential
Memorandum on Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments (1994; 59 FR 10877).
One example of cooperation between Tribes and
NMFS is the partnership between the Skagit
System Cooperative and the NWFSC Watershed
Program to recover threatened chinook salmon in
the Skagit River Basin (see Box 2.2)
Preplanning Considerations 2.2-4
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
2.2.5 Integration of MMPA and ESA
All marine mammals are protected under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The
MMPA specifies that conservation plans should
be completed for any species or stock designated
as depleted, which includes those that are listed
as endangered or threatened under the ESA. The
MMPA defines “depleted” as a marine mammal
species or stock that is below its optimum
sustainable population (OSP) level or that is
listed as threatened or endangered under the
ESA. The OSP level is the number of animals
that will result in the maximum productivity of
the population or the species, keeping in mind the
carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of
the ecosystem of which they form a constituent
element. Thus, in some cases, there is a different
threshold for a depleted designation under the
MMPA than for a threatened or endangered
listing under the ESA.
The MMPA requires that conservation plans be
modeled after ESA recovery plans; therefore, all
MMPA conservation plans should follow the
format of an ESA recovery plan, as described in
this guidance. For those marine mammals that
are depleted due to their listing under the ESA, a
recovery plan can serve the dual purpose of
compliance with the requirement for a recovery
plan under the ESA and for a conservation plan
under the MMPA. For marine mammal stocks
that are depleted but listed under the ESA, the
guidance for recovery plans remains consistent
with requirements for a conservation plan.
Senate report 100-592 indicated that managers
should include the basic components of a
recovery plan as specified in section 4(f)(1)(B) of
the ESA, as well as the following:
(1) an assessment of the status of
the species or stock and its
essential habitat; (2) a
description of the nature,
magnitude, and causes of any
population declines or loss of
essential habitat; (3) an
assessment of existing and
possible threats to the species
and its habitat; (4) a discussion
of critical information gaps; (5) a
description and discussion of
research and management that
could be undertaken to meet the
objectives of the plan; and (6) a
schedule for implementing the
research and management actions
identified in the plan.
This direction for conservation plans comports
with the requirements of a recovery plan. The
assessment of status, trends, habitat needs, causes
of decline, threats, and critical information gaps
can be included in the Background section of the
plan. Research and management actions can be
included in the Recovery Action Narrative section
of the plan. The schedule for implementation of
the plan can be covered in the Implementation
Schedule of the recovery plan. Since the goal of
OSP under the MMPA may be “higher” than that
of delisting under the ESA, a recovery plan would
include goals and criteria for delisting under the
ESA and may also include goals, criteria and
actions for attaining OSP.
Take reduction plans, which are developed
pursuant to section 118 of the MMPA to address
incidental mortality and serious injury of
“strategic”3 marine mammals affected by
commercial fishing operations, should be
incorporated into recovery/conservation plans
when completed. More information on take
reduction plans can be found at 50 CFR part 229,
which provides general guidance for
implementing section 118 of the MMPA.
It should be noted that an enhancement permit
under the MMPA can only be issued if the taking
3 The term “strategic stock” means a
marine mammal stock (1) for which the level of
direct human-caused mortality exceeds the
potential biological removal level; (2) which,
based on the best available scientific information,
is declining and is likely to be listed as a
threatened species under the ESA within the
foreseeable future; or (3) which is listed as a
threatened or endangered species under the ESA,
or is designated as depleted under the MMPA.
Preplanning Considerations 2.2-5
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
or importation is consistent with an MMPA
conservation plan or an ESA recovery plan.
Thus, recovery plans for marine mammals should
address issues such as rescue, rehabilitation,
captive breeding etc., for which requests for
enhancement permits can be anticipated.
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
2.3 Organizing the Recovery Planning Effort
Recovery planning requires NMFS to organize a
process addressing both inside-NMFS and
outside-NMFS involvement. For the simplest
planning efforts, it may be sufficient to approach
organizational issues in an ad hoc fashion. For
more complex efforts, however, these
organizational issues should be explicitly
addressed in order to identify clearly
expectations, responsibilities, and lines of
communication. It is also important to put
together a timeline for completion of key steps,
which includes (and may help set) the frequency
of public meetings and plan reviews, and time
limits for each. The majority of these
considerations will be addressed in the Recovery
Outline (section 3.0).
The inside-NMFS logistics include such issues as
the following:
• Who will be NMFS’ lead
region/recovery biologist for the species?
• What type and level of coordination
needs to occur among recovery,
consultation, and permitting biologists,
etc.?
• What other program or agency personnel
(e.g., Refuges, Fisheries, Contaminants,
Law Enforcement, National Ocean
Service, Marine Sanctuaries, etc.) should
have involvement in recovery planning
and implementation?
• Who will write, edit, or review the plan?
• Who will facilitate meetings (should an
outside facilitator be brought in)?
• Who will maintain administrative files,
including data and comments provided
by experts and stakeholders?
• How can communication and
coordination best be facilitated among
the Field, Regional, and Headquarters
Offices, and other agencies, including
foreign agencies, when appropriate?
• Who will be the NMFS contact person
for stakeholder inquiries?
• Who will need to review the plan before
it can be approved and how much time
can be devoted to review?
Involving experts and stakeholders outside NMFS
in the planning process has become increasingly
important. Whether it be through informal
contacts, information-sharing sessions, task
forces, a recovery team, or other means, the
relationships, roles, and responsibilities among
planning parties again should be explicit. Some of
the outside-NMFS organizational considerations
include the following:
• Does the species or ecosystem occur on
Tribal lands/waters or cross international
borders?
• Who will be integrally involved in plan
preparation, and who will provide peer
reviews?
• What stakeholders will be involved at
which stages in the effort and how?
• What are the most appropriate methods
for contacting/involving stakeholders?
• Do you need to plan time for public
meetings?
• What is the most appropriate length of
time for public comment periods?
• Should a facilitator be used in running
stakeholder meetings?
The outcome of all these considerations should be
a proposed organizational structure and timeline
that can be used to assign or negotiate roles and
responsibilities with all those involved in the
planning effort, and to plan for their completion.
For more information on recovery teams, see
section 2.3.3, Appointing a Recovery Team, and
4.2, Managing a Recovery Team.
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
2.3.1 Coordination
In order to heed the direction in the 1994
Interagency Policy on Recovery Plan
Participation and Implementation of the ESA
(FWS and NMFS 1994c) that recovery plans be
completed in a timely way, e.g., within two and a
half years of listing, the planning process must
run as smoothly as possible. This indicates a
clear need for effective leadership and for
accountability in terms of plan production and
quality. As in any type of project, this outcome
is best achieved by identifying someone as the
Recovery Plan Coordinator. The Recovery Plan
Coordinator should be designated prior to
beginning any recovery plan, and this
individual’s role should be clearly conveyed to
everyone involved in the planning process. The
Recovery Plan Coordinator’s standard role is to be
the key person involved in all aspects of the
planning process to the degree necessary to keep
recovery plan development on course.
In some cases, the Recovery Plan Coordinator will
be the biologist who listed the species; this
individual will then go on to prepare the recovery
outline and write the recovery plan; in other cases,
the Recovery Plan Coordinator will not be directly
involved in preparing planning documents but will
work closely with plan authors and contributors.
For complex, high-profile species, a full-time
species coordinator may be designated, as has
been done for the white abalone. For species with
recovery teams, the Recovery Plan Coordinator
will typically be the Recovery Team Liaison (and,
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-3
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
in some cases, the Team Leader). Some
situations may require a small group of
coordinators rather than a single person; in these
cases, individual roles and responsibilities should
be clearly spelled out before embarking on the
planning project. It is important to note that the
Recovery Plan Coordinator for a specific plan
may or may not be the person designated in the
field or regional office as the Recovery
Coordinator (at the regional level, this role may
involve administrative and review functions
rather than coordination of specific projects, but
each office is different). In any event, the key
consideration is that someone be assigned to take
responsibility for seeing the recovery plan
through both the production and review phases to
a timely completion.
Note that it is important, in terms of
accountability, for the Recovery Plan
Coordinator to be a NMFS employee, even if the
plan is being contracted out or is in any other
way being produced out of house. In cases where
primary responsibility for producing and
implementing a recovery plan has been delegated
to a state agency or other organization, it may be
appropriate to have the NMFS Recovery Plan
Coordinator work hand-in-hand with a co-coordinator
from that agency or organization. In
all cases it is critical to have a key NMFS person
responsible for ensuring that the process does not
stall, that communication among all involved
parties is open and constructive, and that
planning products meet NMFS standards. These
requirements clearly demand organizational
skills, an ability to work well with others, a
willingness to take responsibility for outcomes,
and a conviction that the recovery plan will serve
the best interests of the species.
2.3.2 Plan Preparation
Recovery plans can be written by any of several
different entities, depending on the situation. In
fact, all or part of a recovery plan may have been
written by a different entity and adopted by
NMFS. It should be borne in mind that, whoever
writes the plan, the ESA recovery plan is a
NMFS document and NMFS is ultimately
responsible for its content. The following are
considerations in determining who should write a
recovery plan.
2.3.2.1 Use of Alternative Recovery Plans
In some cases, an alternative plan, already existing
or about to be completed, serves the purpose of a
recovery plan. An alternative plan is usually
written by another agency or organization, but
must be the functional equivalent of a NMFS
recovery plan. In the past, existence of an
alternative plan was used to justify an exemption
from having a recovery plan, but this guidance
considers adoption of an alternative plan a
streamlining method of recovery plan preparation.
Alternative plans must have the elements of a
recovery plan required by the ESA (site-specific
management actions necessary to achieve the
plan’s goal; objective, measurable criteria for
meeting that goal; and estimates of the time and
cost required to carry out those measures) as well
as those required by policy directives and this
guidance. Alternative plans that do not meet these
requirements may be adopted as recovery plans
once appropriate changes are made to ensure that
they meet the requirements. In some cases, these
changes are most appropriately made in the plan
itself; in others they may be made in the form of
an addendum. Alternative plans must undergo
public review and comment.
2.3.2.2 Use of NMFS Biologists to Write
Recovery Plans
In some cases it may be deemed efficient to have
an individual or a small group of individuals
within NMFS, often experts on the species, write
a recovery plan. NMFS biologists are frequently
used when a species has a small range or exists
largely on publicly owned or managed land and
waters and the number of potential stakeholders is
small, making coordination less complex. A
NMFS biologist may also write a recovery plan
when the biologist is one of few experts on the
species.
In the case of publicly owned lands, such as state
parks, conservation areas, national marine
sanctuaries or national wildlife refuges, the
mission of the management area may coincide
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-4
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
with the recovery of the species. This may also
be the case with privately owned lands, such as
trusts and preserves. In these cases, complexity
and conflict are likely to be low, and it is
possible for NMFS biologists to write effective
recovery plans, particularly for species with a
small range.
It is tempting to assign NMFS biologists to write
recovery plans for the sake of efficiency, even if
it is not the most appropriate means of
completing a plan for that species. However, too
many recovery plans are not used because they
do not have the buy-in of those needed to carry
out recovery actions. It is important to ensure
that the long-term benefits of recovery
implementation are not sacrificed for a quick
completion of a recovery plan. In any case, it is
essential that authors of recovery plans
coordinate with all stakeholders.
2.3.2.3 Use of Contractors to Write Recovery
Plans
In some circumstances, it may be more expedient
to hire a contractor to write a recovery plan,
particularly if agency staff are not available.
Contractors hired to write recovery plans may be
affiliated with state conservation agencies,
universities, museums, aquaria, private
conservation organizations or private contracting
businesses with relevant expertise. These
individuals are considered independent scientists
or specialists and are chosen for their expertise.
When writing the plan, they do not represent the
group with which they are otherwise affiliated. A
draft plan does not necessarily reflect the views or
positions of NMFS or any other involved agency.
The plan a contractor submits may be accepted in
full or in part by the Regional or Assistant
Administrator, but the agency is under no
obligation to do so. Contractors are usually hired
through a contractual agreement. As in the case of
agency biologists writing plans, it is imperative
that individuals who are contracted to write a
recovery plan coordinate with stakeholders,
including private landowners, land managers,
users of the areas in which the species occurs, and
other interested parties. In cases where it is
determined not appropriate for a contractor to
coordinate with the stakeholders, NMFS must
carry out these activities appropriately, and the
contract should clarify the roles of the contractor
and NMFS with respect to these activities.
2.3.2.4 Use of Recovery Teams to Write
Recovery Plans
Recovery teams are often used to write recovery
plans, especially when numerous parties have
expertise or interest in the species for which the
plan is being written. Recovery teams can bring
together the diversity of expertise most
appropriate to understanding a particular species’
endangerment and for devising an effective
recovery program. Recovery teams may also
provide stakeholders and jurisdictions (including
State, Tribal, and local governments) the
opportunity to participate in the planning and
implementation of actions necessary to recover
and sustain the listed species; ensure that a
diversity of options for the recovery strategy are
considered; and help to develop plans that are
practical and feasible and that minimize
socioeconomic impacts (although they must lead
to recovery of the species within a reasonable
timeframe).
The decision on whether or not to appoint a
recovery team depends on the specific
circumstances of the species. Generally, teams
are appropriate where there is greater public
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-5
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
interest (i.e., more and diverse stakeholders,
controversial issues) and/or a wider species’
range. Decisions on whether to have a recovery
team and, if so, potential roles of team members
in plan development and implementation may be
addressed in the Recovery Outline (see section
3.0, The Recovery Outline, and Box 2.3.2.4).
Recovery teams have numerous advantages in
that they do the following:
• obtain diverse opinions and ensure
dialogue regarding important recovery
issues;
• increase the depth of expertise
(biological and otherwise) contributing
to plan development;
• provide a mechanism for multiple
agencies and stakeholders to interact;
• address and resolve controversial issues
early in the process;
• impart greater credibility to decisions
made by NMFS regarding the species’
recovery program;
• develop advocates for the recovery
program; and
• facilitate the implementation of recovery
actions.
Disadvantages of recovery teams may include the
following:
• a tendency for unwieldy and
nonproductive meetings, especially if the
team is large or includes persons who
view their special interests as more
important than the recovery of the
species (see section 2.3.3.2, Recovery
Team Composition);
• the investment of considerable energy
and resources;
• difficulties bridging knowledge gaps
among scientists, agency representatives,
and other stakeholders;
• more complications in recovery plan
development due to diverse viewpoints
and sheer number of opinions;
• difficulty managing the dissemination of
information (for example, members may
inadvertently share incomplete or
inaccurate information with the public or
media); and
• potential for misunderstandings if all team
recommendations are not accepted by
NMFS.
Guidance concerning the appointment and
management of recovery teams is provided in
sections 2.3.3, Appointing a recovery team, and
4.2, Managing a Recovery Team.
2.3.2.5 Use of Informal Meetings and Groups
Whether NMFS biologists, contractors or recovery
teams are writing the recovery plan, informal
meetings and groups can be useful to share
information, accomplish planning tasks, explore
multiple points of view, and generate interest in
the planning endeavor (see Box 2.3.2.5). Several
options are provided below:
• Work with experts and interested parties
on a one-to-one basis. Many times, this is
the most productive way for the Recovery
Plan Coordinator and/or for the plan
author to proceed.
• Begin the recovery planning process with
a “kick-off” meeting or workshop in
which experts and other key contributors
can get acquainted, share information and
ideas, express opinions, and help establish
a baseline understanding of the species
with respect to recovery needs and
opportunities.
• Use informal meetings to invigorate the
process at various points during plan
development. These meetings (including
conference calls, video conferencing, or
any other mode of group discussion) can
be task- or topic-oriented; they can help
keep the planning process moving
forward; and they can be more or less
inclusive of individuals with various
expertise and interested parties. Examples
include PVA workshops, meetings to
discuss research findings, single-issue
discussions, meetings with state agencies
to discuss cooperative efforts, and
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-6
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
meetings to review draft
documents.
• Set up informal planning groups, task
forces, topical committees, or
communication networks to address
specific planning issues or to obtain
various types of input.
It should also be recognized that these informal
approaches require a significant degree of
initiative and coordination, which should be
anticipated when developing schedules and
budgets and setting out milestones. Informal
meetings and groups hold the potential for being
much more fluid, inclusive, and focused than
recovery teams, but they are not necessarily less
time consuming. Good communication is all-important,
and follow-up is vital, i.e., meeting
notes should be shared and entered into the
administrative record, and participants should be
apprized of their continuing roles in the planning
process. Also, if the plan is being prepared by a
contractor or other independent party, this
individual should be involved in or kept informed
of all substantive discussions.
Bear in mind that recovery teams and informal
planning meetings or groups are not mutually
exclusive. Recovery team members may join
larger recovery meetings when desired; recovery
teams can work alongside task forces; team
members can be consulted as individual experts,
etc. For any given planning project, the variety of
expertise and richness of experience should be
tapped in the most effective way possible and with
a clear purpose in mind.
Although these less formal avenues for working
with plan contributors and with other planning
partners are more dynamic than a standing
advisory body (like a recovery team - see section
2.3.3) and can provide a means of nurturing strong
working relationships, they cannot function like a
Federal Advisory Committee. According to the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), NMFS
cannot ask for and cannot accept consensus
recommendations; NMFS cannot convene
regularly scheduled meetings with the same group
of invited participants; and none of these groups
or individuals can be given decision making
authority without going through very specific
procedures. It is important to understand the
provisions of FACA before any of the above
options are used. Within this legal constraint,
however, the informal approach can be an
effective way of garnering individual viewpoints
and new information while avoiding some of the
pitfalls associated with recovery teams, e.g.,
conflicts of interest, size limitations, difficulties in
gaining consensus, and the time constraints of
team members.
As an example of the concerns about violating
FACA, in 1994, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld a District Court holding that the combined
findings of several scientists, initially requested
individually by the FWS to assess the current
status of the Alabama sturgeon, constituted a
scientific advisory panel without following FACA
procedures, and there had been a violation of
FACA (Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition v.
Dept. of Interior, 26 F.3d 1103 (11th Cir. 1994)).
Because of this violation, the court upheld an
injunction preventing the FWS from publishing,
employing, and relying on the panel’s report,
either directly or indirectly, to determine whether
to list the Alabama sturgeon. This decision was
made, not because the science was invalid, but
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-7
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
because it was developed and introduced into the
process without following FACA procedures.
2.3.3 Appointing a Recovery Team
2.3.3.1 Statutory and Policy Basis
According to section 4(f)(2) of the ESA, NMFS,
“in developing and implementing recovery plans,
may procure the services of appropriate public
and private agencies and institutions, and other
qualified persons.” Section 4(f)(2) also exempts
appointed recovery teams from the requirements
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA;
see Section 1.2). Most appointed groups whose
purposes are to develop or implement recovery
plans qualify as recovery teams and thus are
exempt from FACA constraints.
Although appointed recovery teams are
specifically exempt from FACA provisions,
outside of the recovery team setting one must
carefully consider the provisions of FACA when
seeking advice or recommendations from more
than one individual at a time in the development
and implementation of recovery plans.
2.3.3.2 Recovery Team Composition
The composition of a recovery team is crucial to
its effectiveness. Team membership and team
size are two key considerations in ensuring a
functional recovery team.
Identification and Selection of Team Members –
Recovery teams usually consist of a Team
Leader, a Team Liaison, and a manageable
number of team members (see Team Size below).
Although diversity of membership is encouraged,
recovery team membership should be based on
relevant expertise, not affiliation, and all
members of the recovery team must be
committed to the recovery of the species in a
timely manner. Team members should be
selected for their knowledge of (1) the species,
closely related species, ecosystem, or relevant
disciplines, e.g., local planning, ecology,
genetics; (2) the threats contributing to the status
of the species, e.g., resource extraction
operations, forestry, hydrology; or (3) various
elements of recovery plan design or
implementation, e.g., land-use planning or
knowledge of alternatives to reduce
socioeconomic effects of implementation. Teams
are to be composed of recognized experts in their
fields and are encouraged to explore all avenues to
achieve recovery. Membership should include
people with experience in managing species and in
restoring and managing habitats. Additional
considerations when selecting team members
include (1) the ability to work together in team
situations and (2) the ability to make time
available to fulfill the needs of the recovery
planning time frames.
Team Leaders and Team Liaisons – Although the
Team Leader and the Team Liaison may be the
same person, the Team Liaison is always a NMFS
employee while, in many cases, the Team Leader
is not a NMFS employee. The individuals in these
positions work closely together to handle logistics
of meetings, communication among members and
between members and the agency, and ensure that
the team stays on schedule. Both must have good
organizational and leadership skill and have the
ability to maintain a productive atmosphere for the
recovery team. The Team Leader particularly is
generally chosen because s/he is well respected
and is considered fair and unbiased. The latter is
especially important for species’ plans that will
involve contentious issues.
Generally, the responsibilities of the Team Leader
include the following:
• Works with the Team Liaison to plan
recovery team meetings
• Chairs and facilitates recovery team
meetings (although a professional
facilitator may be brought in for specific
meetings in which a subject is going to
attract a large number of people or is
particularly contentious, or all meetings, if
necessary)
• Takes a lead on overseeing recovery plan
development
• Works with the team to identify and
recommend priorities for recovery
implementation
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-8
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Generally, the responsibilities of the Team
Liaison include the following:
• Provides guidance to the team regarding
their role and function
• Ensures that the Regional
Administrator’s requests and
recommendations are addressed
• Serves as the conduit through which
recommendations, team minutes, and
other communications to and from the
Regional Administrator are transmitted
• Keeps the Regional Office and
Headquarters informed of team opinions
and positions on critical issues, and
recovery planning progress
• Represents, elicits participation of, and
informs experts in other NMFS programs
(e.g., Habitat Conservation, Sustainable
Fisheries), as appropriate
Team Size – Team size should balance the need
to include diverse expertise and experience with
the need to optimize manageability. In addition
to the previously mentioned advantages of
including a variety of expertise on teams, it has
been suggested that diverse teams, particularly
those with at least one non-federal member, may
result in plans that are more likely to be
implemented and effective (Clark et al. 2002).
However, both Clark et al. (2002) and Gerber and
Schultz (2002) also note that larger teams do not
correlate with better plans or improved status
trends for listed species. Management literature
regarding team size indicates that teams may
consist of two to 25 members (Hiller 1998)
although the size generally suggested for optimal
functioning is five to eight (Baguley 2002,
Harrington-Mackin 1994). More specifically,
Baguley (2002) states that the ideal size for a
well-functioning team is five to seven members
and that no more than ten members should be
appointed to the team if full participation and
involvement is being sought, albeit larger teams
allow a wider range and diversity of skills and
abilities. Harrington-Mackin (1994) sets the
ideal team size for accomplishing multiple,
complex tasks at five to eight members. She
defines small teams as having six to 12 members
and large teams as having 15-25 members. She
cautions that larger teams are generally more
appropriate when they are tasked with a simpler
assignment or when the team is to be subdivided
into specialized functions; in any case, members
of large teams must recognize that they will not
have equal participation in all issues
(Harrington-Mackin 1994). These team size
sideboards are found throughout business
management literature.
There are a variety of options for restructuring the
"traditional" recovery team format for cases where
the number of potential contributors significantly
exceeds the optimal functional team size. Options
include developing: workgroups,
scientific/technical and implementation
subgroups, advisory recovery networks,
core-teams, and technical consultants/technical
advisors (see Appendix G). Experts or
contributors who are primarily involved through
these alternate mechanisms usually address
specific species or habitat issues, rather than large
sections of the recovery plan.
2.3.3.3 Appointing a Recovery Team
Recovery team members are appointed by the lead
Assistant Administrator (with the exception of
NMFS Pacific salmon teams, which are appointed
by the Regional Administrator) with the approval
of the prospective team member's employer. An
appointment letter describing the terms of their
appointment is sent to new members (See
Appendix H for a sample appointment letter).
These terms and other issues regarding team
procedures may be clarified through a Terms of
Reference, which is often distributed and agreed
upon by all members at the first meeting.
The appointment letter does the following:
• Identifies the purposes of the team
(whether to write/revise a plan, guide
recovery implementation etc.)
• Explains that team members serve in an
advisory capacity to the Assistant or
Regional Administrator and are providing
their recommendations and advice in
response to their requests
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-9
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
• Indicates the anticipated duration of the
team
• Clarifies that team members may be
removed or replaced as the focus of the
recovery team changes or if an individual
fails to serve in a contributory and
constructive way
• Clarifies that recovery teams may be
terminated or restructured when their
purpose has been served
• Notes, as appropriate, whether team
members are responsible for their own
travel expenses.
2.3.3.4 Terms of Reference
A Terms of Reference, which describes the team
operating rules, is not mandatory but can be a
very useful document. Generally, the Team
Leader and Team Liaison or Recovery
Coordinator draw up a Terms of Reference in
advance of the first recovery team meeting. The
team then discusses it and proposes changes, if
any. Once finalized, the Terms of Reference
should be agreed to by all team members and the
Regional Administrator (see Appendix I for a
sample Terms of Reference). The specific
contents of the Terms of Reference should be
tailored to each situation and can be finalized in
consultation with the team. This document
serves as an agreement between each member of
the recovery team and NMFS.
The Terms of Reference does the following:
• Clarifies the purposes of the team and
expected products
• Details the responsibilities of NMFS
with respect to the team
• Details the roles of team members, the
Team Leader, and the Team
Liaison/Recovery Coordinator
• Describes the operating rules of the team,
e.g., whether decisions will be made by
consensus (preferable), majority votes,
3/4 majority votes; what percentage of
members form a quorum; if members can
have proxies or must be present, etc.
• Addresses the formation and duties of
sub-committees, workgroups, and other
groups
• Emphasizes the confidentiality of drafts
and internal documents
2.3.4 Developing a Production Schedule
As stated in section 1.5.1, Timeframes, recovery
outlines should be completed within 60 days of
listing and approved within 90 days of listing, and
a draft recovery plan developed within 1.5 years
of listing and a final within 2.5 years of listing. A
schedule for accomplishing various planning
actions and a method for monitoring progress
should be developed. This schedule should
include important meetings (including public
meetings), turnaround times for internal and peer
reviews, and other milestones.
2.3.5 Setting Up the Administrative Record
The administrative record is the paper trail that
shows the basis upon which the agency has made
its decisions, and the procedures that the agency
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-10
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
followed. The administrative record for a
recovery plan consists of all documents and
materials considered by the decision-makers in
making decisions concerning the development
and implementation of the recovery plan,
including those that reflect positions contrary to
the final outcome. Examples of documents that
should be included in the administrative record
include the following:
• Relevant portions of policies, guidelines,
directives, manuals, books, etc.
• Technical information, sampling results,
survey information or other studies,
reports, or scientific articles relating to
the species covered in the plan
• External correspondence relating to the
plan, including communications from
other agencies and the public, and
responses to those communications (E-mails
from those outside the agency
should be printed on paper and included
in the administrative record)
• Notes or minutes of meetings with
stakeholders, invitations and outreach
material
• Transcripts of public hearings and other
meeting notes
• Telephone conversation records, unless
they are personal notes (see below)
• Petitions or other legal documents
received from adversarial groups
• Draft versions of the plan that were
circulated outside the agency
• Federal Register or other notices or
formal documents relating to the plan
• Decision documents
Personal notes written and controlled by
individual staff members solely for their own use
are not included in the administrative record.
NMFS has issued Guidelines for Agency
Administrative Records. These are available at
http://reefshark.nmfs.noaa.gov/f/pds/publicsite/d
ocuments/procedures/30-123-01.pdf .
An administrative record should be established
early in the process of recovery planning and
maintained throughout. A good administrative
record documenting the processes and decisions
involved in developing and implementing a
recovery plan is extremely important; if a recovery
plan is challenged in court, the administrative
record will serve as the basis for court review.
Two laws are particularly relevant to the
establishment and maintenance of an
administrative record – the Administrative
Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) and the Freedom of
Information Act of 1966 (FOIA).
Administrative Procedure Act
The APA sets standards for judicial review of
agency actions and public involvement in a rule-making
process. The APA allows a private party
to challenge the legal sufficiency of any final
“agency action” (under which a final recovery
plan or the decision that a recovery plan would not
promote conservation of the species can be
challenged) or bring a lawsuit for an “agency
action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably
delayed” (under which the failure to complete a
recovery plan in a timely manner can be
challenged). When reviewing the adequacy of a
final recovery plan or decision not to prepare a
plan, a court should uphold the plan or decision
unless it is “ arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of
discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the
law.” In conducting its examination, the court
will consider whether the agency acted within the
scope of its legal authority, whether the agency
adequately explained its decision, whether the
agency based its decision on facts in the record,
and whether the agency considered the relevant
factors. The successful defense of a final recovery
plan or decision not to prepare a plan thus largely
depends upon the adequacy of the agency’s
administrative record.
The APA also requires the publication in the
Federal Register of rules and a period for public
comment. Although a recovery plan does not
come under the public notice and comment
requirements of the APA, the ESA itself requires
public notice and the opportunity for comment.
The adequacy of the public comment process
would be reviewed under APA standards. The
administrative record should document NMFS’
public comment process and that the agency
considered the comments received. Thus, a
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-11
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft plan
must be published in the Federal Register, and
interested parties and the public must be given an
opportunity to comment.
Freedom of Information Act
FOIA states that any person has the right to
request access to federal agency records. Federal
agencies are required to disclose records upon
receiving a written request for them, except for
those records that are protected from disclosure
by the nine exemptions and three exclusions of
the FOIA. This right of access is enforceable in
court. Records include all books, papers, maps,
charts, plans, architectural drawings and
microfilm; all machine-readable material such as
electronic mail, magnetic tape, disks, drums, and
punched cards; all audiovisual material such as
still pictures, sound and video recordings; and all
other documentary materials (including
handwritten notes), regardless of physical form
or characteristics, made by or received by NMFS
pursuant to Federal laws or in connections with
the transaction of public business and preserved
or appropriate for preservation by the Service as
evidence of the organization, functions, policies,
decisions, procedures, operations, or other
activities, or because of the informational value
of the record (44 U.S.C. 2211).
The nine exemptions of FOIA follow:
1. Matters of national defense or foreign
policy
2. Internal personnel rules and practices
3. Information specifically prohibited from
disclosure by other statutes
4. Trade secrets, commercial or financial
information (confidential business
information)
5. Privileged interagency or intra-agency
documents
6. Personal information affecting an
individual’s privacy
7. Records compiled for law enforcement
purposes
8. Records of financial institutions
9. Geological and geophysical information,
including maps, concerning wells
However, if a portion of a record falls within one
of the exempted categories it does not mean that it
is automatically excluded from release (note that
an entire record would rarely fall within an
exemption). If an exemption is to be invoked to
deny access to information, a justification for
withholding the information must be provided -- a
mere assertion that an exemption applies is
insufficient.
It should be noted that any information that has
already been released in some way to the public
can no longer qualify for an exemption.
Generally, once a document has been released to a
non-agency party, it loses its exempted status and
cannot be withheld as a privileged document in
litigation. Although this issue is not necessarily
limited to FOIA, FOIA is a common form of
release. This serves as a reminder to be cognizant
of what gets shared with stakeholders and others
outside the recovery team. However, NMFS
should be able to release agency documents to
recovery team members without waiving their
ability to withhold the documents under FOIA, as
long as team members do not distribute the
documents. Consider whether confidentiality
should be one of the ground rules for the recovery
team. Such documents should be labeled as
confidential and team members should understand
that such documents should not be shared outside
the recovery team process.
Preplanning Considerations 2.4-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
2.4 Preparing for Stakeholder Involvement
Stakeholders, broadly defined, are those who
have an interest in the recovery of the species or
particular actions taken to recover the species.
Stakeholders can include, but are not limited to,
other programs within NMFS, other government
agencies (Federal, Tribal, State and local),
affected landowners or fishers, academic
scientists, conservation organizations, industries,
or members of the general public. Establishing
relationships with stakeholders as early in the
process as appropriate and feasible is essential to
building a foundation for the stakeholder
involvement that will result in the development
of recovery strategies that are practicable and
likely to be implemented, thus achieving species
recovery.
The recovery outline should include a description
of how and where stakeholders will be involved
in the planning process. This should include
preliminary identification of, and a strategy for
involving, appropriate stakeholders. In most
cases, because of time constraints, formal
stakeholder involvement will likely not begin
until after the outline is complete. Below are
thoughts on how to identify and involve
stakeholders. These should be considered during
the writing of the recovery outline and after the
recovery outline is complete. Stakeholder
involvement should continue throughout the
recovery planning process. Additional
information on involving stakeholders in the
development of a recovery plan is discussed in
section 4.3, Managing Stakeholder Involvement.
2.4.1 Identifying Key Stakeholders
Determining who the relevant stakeholders may
be depends upon the situation and type of
recovery activities that may be needed for the
species. Having the right stakeholders is
essential to developing an effective recovery plan
and realizing its implementation. Stakeholders
who commented on the proposed listing or who
were otherwise involved in the listing process
can form a starting point for identifying
stakeholders. Questions to ask when identifying
relevant stakeholders include the following:
• Who are the people or groups most
dependent on the resources involved?
• Who are the people or groups most
interested in recovering the species?
• Who commented on the proposed listing
or were otherwise involved in the listing
process?
• Who best represents those likely to affect
or be affected by the recovery process?
• Who can help you meet the potential
recovery goal, objectives, and criteria?
• Who is likely to be responsible for actions
required for recovery?
• Who possesses claims, including legal
jurisdiction and customary use, over the
resources involved?
• Who are the people or groups most
knowledgeable about, and capable of
dealing with, the resource issues?
• Who specifically is having an impact on
the conservation of the species?
• Who has been primarily managing the
species and its habitat?
• Have there been similar conservation
initiatives in the area? If successful, who
was in charge and how did stakeholders
participate?
• What stakeholder participation might be
missed without a special effort?
• Who is likely to mobilize for or against
what may be needed?
• Who can make what is intended more
effective through their participation or
less effective by their nonparticipation or
outright opposition?
• Who can contribute financial and
technical resources?
• Who will use the plan to justify funding
requests, e.g., states or other NMFS
programs?
Once a list of potential stakeholders is developed,
the next step is to identify specific individuals or
groups that are willing to participate in the
recovery process. This is best done by learning
how prospective stakeholders are organized and
how they operate, by determining their
relationships to one another; and by understanding
the social, cultural, and institutional factors that
Preplanning Considerations 2.4-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
affect the ability of stakeholders to participate. It
may also be useful to disseminate information
about the proposed activity, enabling interested
stakeholders to identify themselves to you.
2.4.2 Options for Stakeholder Participation
NMFS must promote stakeholder participation
early in the recovery process by (1) making
recovery outlines available to the public via
NMFS’ internet sites, (2) providing public
notification regarding the intent to develop a
recovery plan, an anticipated timeline for
recovery planning, the opportunities for
stakeholder involvement in planning and
implementation, and (3) soliciting information
about the recovery needs of the species or ways
to minimize the social and economic impacts of
implementing recovery actions. For newly listed
or recently reclassified species, this can be
accomplished simply by adding language to the
final listing rule. For revisions or previously
listed species without plans, NMFS requires
publishing a Federal Register notice. In all
cases, a notice may also be made available via
NMFS’ internet sites. Other means of ensuring
meaningful stakeholder involvement that should
be considered in the writing of the recovery
outline and beyond include, but are not limited
to, the following:
• Holding public hearings and group
meetings (this involves planning for
adequate funding and time);
• Providing stakeholders with regular
reports from, and an opportunity to
provide regular input to, the recovery
team or other plan writers;
• Asking stakeholders to select the stages
of plan development and issues in which
they wish to be involved, to help them
make most efficient use of their time and
focus their participation on their most
important issues;
• Including stakeholders on subcommittees
set up for particular issues; and
• Including key stakeholders on the
recovery team.
See section 4.3.2, Methods for Involving
Stakeholders, for additional methods to involve
stakeholders.
The Recovery Outline 3.0 - 1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
3.0 The Recovery Outline
Conservation actions for imperiled species can be
initiated before or after a species has been listed
as threatened or endangered. For some species,
conservation needs are outlined prior to listing in
such documents as state conservation
agreements, candidate conservation agreements,
or other management plans and strategies.
Following listing, development begins on
recovery plans, which contain long-term
recommendations for meeting reclassification
(for endangered species) and delisting objectives.
In the interim between listing and recovery plan
approval, the recovery outline provides a
preliminary strategy for conservation that
conforms to the mandates of the ESA. The
recovery outline both guides initial recovery
actions and ensures that future recovery options
are not precluded due to a lack of interim
planning. The recovery outline also lays the
groundwork for recovery planning by
documenting preplanning decisions.
Recovery outlines or their functional equivalent
must be prepared for all newly listed species.
This applies equally to multiple-species and
ecosystem strategies. In addition, for any
previously listed species that lack an approved
recovery plan, a recovery outline must also be
prepared. Ultimately, all listed species will have
a relevant, documented strategy, whether it be a
recovery outline or a recovery plan, that guides
the conservation effort.
The Recovery Outline 3.1 - 1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
3.1 Definition and Purpose
The recovery outline is a succinct, strategic,
document used to direct the recovery effort and
maintain recovery options for a species, group of
species, or ecosystem, pending an approved
recovery plan. Recovery outlines constitute an
important part of the administrative record for
listed species.
The primary function of the recovery outline is to
present a preliminary conservation strategy that
will guide recovery actions in a systematic,
cohesive way until a recovery plan is available.
Its secondary function is to guide and document
preplanning considerations for recovery
planning. If the species is deferred or exempt
from recovery planning (see section 2.2.1,
Exemption from Drafting Recovery Plans), the
recovery outline will act as the main recovery
document.
The recovery outline addresses several needs.
Actions that are urgently needed at the time a
species is listed, as well as actions that constitute
the early steps of prolonged efforts, can be
implemented more effectively and efficiently if
they are treated as integral parts of a rangewide
conservation strategy. By providing a consistent
view of the species’ status and recovery needs,
the recovery outline can also provide a basis for
conducting project reviews under ESA sections 7
and 10. It can also be used by biologists to help
project proponents to avoid narrowing or
precluding future recovery options, e.g., allowing
loss of a portion of habitat that might later be
determined to be extremely important to the
recovery of the species. With respect to critical
habitat, identification of recovery needs can
provide a context for management decisions
within designated areas and inform delineation of
appropriate habitat for future designation. Using
the recovery outline as an organizational tool for
both guiding and recording preplanning decisions
(see section 2.0, Preplanning Considerations)
will help expedite the recovery planning process,
particularly in terms of thinking ahead about who
will be involved in recovery plan preparation and
how stakeholders can most effectively be
involved in the planning and implementation
process, if applicable.
When developing a recovery outline, keep in mind
its practical uses as a hands-on guide to action and
as a preplanning document. The recovery outline
should be as concise as possible, although length
and level of detail will vary among species. It
should be prepared with the users in mind, i.e.,
those biologists, managers, and decision makers
who will be implementing recovery actions. The
recovery outline is not meant in any way to detract
from the recovery planning process; it should not
become a de facto recovery plan, nor should it
deter efforts to expedite the recovery planning
process.
The Recovery Outline 3.2 - 1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
3.2 Contents of the Recovery Outline
The contents of the recovery outline are divided
into four major components: introduction,
recovery needs assessment, preli

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Interim
Endangered and Threatened Species
Recovery Planning Guidance
Version 1.3
National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East-West Hwy.
Silver Spring, MD 20910
and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Dr.
Arlington, VA 22203
Original (1.0): October 2004
Version 1.1: Updated July 2006 (acknowledgments; pp. i-v, x;
sections 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 8.0)
Version 1.2: Updated September 2007 (section 5.1 - disclaimer only)
Version 1.3: Updated June 2010 (section 2.1 only)
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Acknowledgments:
The National Marine Fisheries Service is grateful for the contribution of numerous U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service employees to the original writing and subsequent updating of this guidance. We
could not have completed it without their assistance.
Organization of the Document:
The Recovery Planning Guidance is designed in such a way as to facilitate its updating. The
original version was completed in October 2004. Subsequent updates are indicated with a new
date in the lower righthand corner of each chapter that has been updated. If a chapter has not
been updated, the original date will appear in the lower righthand corner of the document. In this
way, an individual can know if they have the latest version of each chapter by comparing it to the
version on our website, and can keep their hard copy updated without having to print the entire
document. We suggest that users of this guidance keep their hard copy in a three-ring binder.
The latest version of the guidance can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/.
Table of Contents - i
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Table of Contents
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
List of Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
List of Phone Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1.0 Purpose and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0-1
1.1 Why Develop Recovery Plans? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1-1
1.2 Legal and Policy Guidance for Recovery Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2-1
1.3 A Comprehensive Approach to Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3-1
1.3.1. The Ecosystem Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3-1
1.3.2 The Significance of Threats in Recovery Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3-1
1.3.3 Synergies with Other Parts of the ESA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3-2
1.3.4 Partnerships in Recovery Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3-2
1.4 Opportunities for Streamlining and Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4-1
1.5 Overview of the Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5-1
1.5.1 Timeframes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5-2
1.5.2 Agency Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5-3
2.0 Preplanning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1-1
2.1 Determining the Scope of the Recovery Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1-1
2.1.1 Single Species/Subspecies/DPS Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1-2
2.1.2 Multiple Species Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1-2
2.1.3 Ecosystem Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1-3
2.2 Special Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2-1
2.2.1 Exemption from Drafting Recovery Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2-1
2.2.2 Deferring Recovery Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2-1
2.2.3 Transnational and Transboundary Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2-2
2.2.4 Working with Native American Tribes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2-2
2.2.5 Integration of MMPA and ESA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2-5
2.3 Organizing the Recovery Planning Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-1
2.3.1 Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-2
2.3.2 Plan Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-3
2.3.2.1 Use of Alternative Recovery Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-3
2.3.2.2 Use of NMFS Biologists to Write Recovery Plans . . . . . . . 2.3-3
2.3.2.3 Use of Contractors to Write Recovery Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-4
2.3.2.4 Use of Recovery Teams to Write Recovery Plans . . . . . . . . 2.3-4
Table of Contents - ii
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
2.3.2.5 Use of Informal Meetings and Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-5
2.3.3 Appointing a Recovery Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-7
2.3.3.1 Statutory and Policy Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-7
2.3.3.2 Recovery Team Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-7
2.3.3.3 Appointing a Recovery Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-9
2.3.3.4 Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-9
2.3.4 Developing a Production Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-10
2.3.5 Setting Up the Administrative Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-10
2.4 Preparing for Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4-1
2.4.1 Identifying Key Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4-1
2.4.2 Options for Stakeholder Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4-2
3.0 The Recovery Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0-1
3.1 Definition and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1-1
3.2 Contents of the Recovery Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-1
3.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-2
3.2.2 Recovery status assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-2
3.2.3 Preliminary Recovery Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-4
3.2.4 Preplanning Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-6
3.3 Procedural Requirements and Timelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-1
3.3.1 Preparation of the Recovery Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-1
3.3.2 Review and Approval of the Recovery Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-1
3.3.3 Distribution and Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-1
3.3.4 Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-2
3.3.4.1 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-2
3.3.4.2 Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-2
3.3.5 Using/updating the Recovery Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-3
4.0 Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-1
4.1 Directing the Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-1
4.1.1 Effective Coordination and Management Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-1
4.1.2 Managing Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-1
4.1.3 Staying on track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-2
4.2 Managing a Recovery Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1
4.2.1 The Role of a Recovery Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1
4.2.2 Agency Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1
4.2.3 Recovery Team Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1
4.3 Managing Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-1
4.3.1 How to Create Effective Stakeholder Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-1
4.3.2 Methods for Involving Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-1
4.3.3 Strategies for Communicating with Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-3
4.3.3.1 Technology-based Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-3
4.3.3.2 Non-technology Based Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-4
4.3.3.3 Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-4
4.3.4 Legal Considerations for Interacting with Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-4
Table of Contents - iii
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
4.4 Public Communication and Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4-1
4.5 Monitoring considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-1
4.6 Information standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-1
4.7 Formatting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7-1
4.8 User Friendly/Plain English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8-1
4.9 Maintaining the Administrative Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9-1
5.0 The Recovery Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0-1
5.1 Contents of a recovery plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1
5.1.1 Title Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1
5.1.2 Disclaimer Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-2
5.1.3 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-3
5.1.4 Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-4
5.1.5 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-5
5.1.6 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-6
5.1.6.1 Brief Overview/Status of the Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-6
5.1.6.2 Species’ Description and Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-6
5.1.6.3 Populations Trends and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-7
5.1.6.4 Life History/Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-7
5.1.6.5 Habitat Characteristics/Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-7
5.1.6.6 Critical Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-8
5.1.6.7 Reasons for Listing / Threats Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-9
5.1.6.8 Conservation Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-9
5.1.6.9 Biological Constraints and Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-10
5.1.7 Recovery Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-10
5.1.7.1 Delineation of Recovery Units (optional) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-11
5.1.8 Recovery Goals, Objectives and Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-12
5.1.8.1 Recovery Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-13
5.1.8.2 Recovery Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-13
5.1.8.3 Recovery Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-13
5.1.9 Recovery Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-18
5.1.9.1 Threats Tracking Table (optional) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-19
5.1.9.2 Recovery Action Outline (= Stepdown Outline) . . . . . . . . 5.1-19
5.1.9.3 Recovery Action Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-20
5.1.10 Implementation Schedule and Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-26
5.1.11 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-28
5.1.12 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-30
5.2 Procedural Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
5.2.1 Plan Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
5.2.1.1 Information Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
5.2.1.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
5.2.1.3 Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-1
5.2.2 Review of Recovery Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-2
5.2.2.1 Technical Review (optional) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-2
5.2.2.2 Peer Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-2
5.2.2.3 Public Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-4
5.2.3 Incorporation of Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-5
Table of Contents - iv
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
5.2.4 Approval and Distribution Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-5
5.2.4.1 Distribution of Comments to Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-5
5.2.4.2 NMFS Approval and Distribution Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2-5
6.0 Using and Updating the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0-1
6.1 Implementation, Monitoring, and Information Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1-1
6.1.1 Review of Recovery Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1-1
6.1.2 Reassessing Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1-1
6.2 Modifying the Recovery Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2-1
6.2.1 Plan Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2-2
6.2.2 Plan Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2-3
6.2.3 Plan Addenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2-3
6.3 Notification, Review, and Approval of Plan Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3-1
6.4 Continuing Involvement in the Recovery Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4-1
6.4.1 Maintaining the recovery team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4-1
6.4.2 Maintaining partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4-1
6.4.3 Maintaining public support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4-2
7.0 Emerging Ideas and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0-1
8.0 Recovery Planning References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0-1
Appendices - v
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Appendices
Appendix A. 1994 Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
Cooperative ESA Policies.
Appendix B. Relevant Recovery related court decisions.
Fund for Animals et al. v. Babbitt et al. – Grizzly Bear
Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Bruce Babbitt et al., - Sonoran Pronghorn
Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Norton et al. - Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard
SWCBD and Rio Grande Chapter of Trout Unlimited v. Babbitt - Gila Trout
Appendix C. Threats Assessment
Appendix D. Memorandum of Understanding Establishing The Canada/Mexico/United States
Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management.
Appendix E. Framework for Cooperation between the U.S. Department of Interior and
Environment Canada in the Protection and Recovery of Wild Species at Risk.
Appendix F. Tribal Coordination Documents
Joint Secretarial Order on American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act
Executive Order: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites
Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994: Government-to-Government
Relations With Native American Tribal Governments
American Indian and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S. Department of Commerce
Appendix G. Recovery Team Subgroups.
Scientific and Implementation Subgroup
Pacific Islands Ecoregion Recovery Advisory Network
Appendix H. Example Letters to Recovery Teams.
Appendix I. Terms of Reference for the Hawaiian Monk Seal.
Appendix K. Sample Recovery Outline.
Appendix L. Contractual Agreement for Drafting a Recovery Plan (to be added later)
Appendix M. Example Memorandum of Agreement between an Agency and a Recovery Team
Appendix N. Information Quality Guidelines
Appendix O. FWS National Outreach Strategy
Appendix P. FWS/NMFS Controlled Propagation policy
Appendix Q. Example Implementation Schedule.
Appendix R. Peer Review documents.
Appendix S. Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines
Appendix T. Notices of Availability of a draft Recovery Plan for review and comment
Appendix U. Notice of Availability of a final Recovery Plan
Appendix V. Linking Threats to Recovery Actions (Table and Tip sheet)
List of Figures - vi
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Recovery Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5-1
Figure 2. Sample Recovery Plan Title Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-1
Figure 3. Sample Recovery Plan Disclaimer Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-2
Figure 4. Sample Recovery Plan Acknowledgments Page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-3
Figure 5. Sample Recovery Plan Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-5
List of Tables - vii
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
List of Tables
Table 1. Timelines for Recovery Outline and Recovery Plan Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5-2
Table 2. NMFS Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5-3
Table 3. Required Contents of a Recovery Outline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-1
Table 4. Example Cost Estimates Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-4
List of Tables - viii
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
List of Boxes
Box 1.0 - 2002 Society for Conservation Biology Study of FWS Recovery Plans
and its application to the NMFS Recovery Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0-2
Box 1.2 - Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Criteria Legal Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2-3
Box 2.2 - Working with Local Tribes to Recover Salmon in the Pacific Northwest. . . . . . . 2.2-4
Box 2.3 The Recovery Planning Process for Pacific salmon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-2
Box 2.3.2.4 - Decision Point: Recovery Team or Not??. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-5
Box 2.3.2.5 - Use of informal planning by a Service Biologist: Endangered Wood Stork
Recovery Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-6
Box 2.3.3.3 - One Way to Construct a Recovery Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3-9
Box 3.2.2 - 1 - Prompt Sheet for Biological Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-2
Box 3.2.2 - 2 - Prompt Sheet for Threats Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-3
Box 3.2.2 - 3 - Prompt Sheet for Conservation Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-4
Box 3.2.3 - 1 - Recovery Vision Prompt Sheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-5
Box 3.2.3 - 2 - Action Plan Prompt Sheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-5
Box 4.3.2 - Stakeholder Involvement with the Loggerhead Turtle Recovery Team. . . . . . . 4.3-3
Box 5.1.6.6 - Special Attributes of Critical Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-8
Box 5.1.6.7 - The five listing factors, as outlined in section 4 of the ESA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-9
Box 5.1.8.3 - 1 - When drafting recovery criteria, remember that they should be “SMART”.5.1-14
Box 5.1.8.3 - 2 - Examples of Recovery Criteria from the Piping Plover Recovery Plan,
revised, Jan. 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-14
Box 5.1.8.3 - 3 - Examples of Listing/recovery Factor-based Recovery Criteria. . . . . . . . . 5.1-15
Box 5.1.8.3 - 4 - The Gila Trout Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1-17
Box 5.1.9.2 - Recovery Action Outline: Atlantic Coast Population of the Piping Plover . . 5.1-20
Acronyms - ix
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Acronyms
The following standard abbreviations for scientific/technical acronyms are found throughout this
document:
APA Administrative Procedure Act
DOI Department of the Interior
DPS Distinct Population Segment
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FR Federal Register
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HQ Headquarters Office (NMFS)
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (also known as NOAA Fisheries)
NOA Notice of Availability
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPR Office of Protected Resources (NMFS)
PVA Population Viability Analysis
RSRP Recovery Science Review Panel (Pacific salmon)
SCB Society for Conservation Biology
TRT Technical Recovery Team (Pacific salmon); Take Reduction Team (MMPA)
List of Phone Numbers - x
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
List of Phone Numbers
National Marine Fisheries Service
Headquarters Office of Protected Resources (Silver Spring MD)
Division of Endangered Species - 301-713-1401
Division of Marine Mammals - 301-713-2322
Northeast Regional Office (Gloucester, MA)
Office of Protected Resources - 978-281-9328
Southeast Regional Office (St. Petersburg, FL)
Office of Protected Resources - 727-824-5312
Northwest Regional Office (Portland, OR)
Office of Protected Resources - 503-736-4721
Southwest Regional Office (Long Beach, CA)
Main number - 562-980-4000
Pacific Islands Regional Office (Honolulu, HI)
Main number - 808-973-2937
Alaska Regional Office (Juneau, AK)
Main number - 907-586-7221
Purpose and Overview 1.0-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.0 Purpose and Overview
The purpose of this document is to guide the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
its partners in recovery planning under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)1. Although
every species has unique needs and
circumstances, this guidance strives to ensure
consistency in approach to the application of
statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements in
the development of recovery plans, to emphasize
certain aspects of planning, and to assist in
keeping plans useful and current. This
document has been developed by NMFS, and
once finalized, it will supersede the 1992 NMFS
Recovery Planning Guidelines (NMFS 1992)
and the joint Interagency Cooperative Policy on
Recovery Plan Participation and Implementation
Under the Endangered Species Act, which was
promulgated in 1994 (59 FR 34272; FWS and
NMFS 1994c).
Recovery planning has evolved considerably
over the years as we have learned more about
the root causes of endangerment and what it
takes to recover species. Species’ biological
needs and responses to specific threats and
recovery actions are myriad. However, certain
themes are repeated time and again, such as the
need to identify and mitigate the threats to a
species and to bolster its numbers and range in
order to assure sustainable recovery. This
guidance attempts to learn from and take
advantage of these commonalities while also
allowing for the flexibility necessary to tailor
species-specific recovery programs that
accommodate the unique biological capabilities
and needs of the species and address the specific
circumstances of its endangerment.
To achieve this breadth and flexibility, a
drafting team representing extensive recovery
experience in field, regional, and national
offices in the agency drew on their own
experience as well as on that of their peers and
the scientific literature (Box 1.0). The resultant
draft, thoroughly reviewed, reflects the recovery
experience of NMFS, as informed by the
scientific literature.
1The Marine Mammal Protection Act
requires the development of conservation plans
for ‘depleted’ marine mammals species (16
U.S.C. 1383b(b)). For species that are also
listed as threatened or endangered under the
ESA, the same plan may serve both purposes
(see section 2.2.5 Integration of MMPA and
ESA).
Purpose and Overview 1.0-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Purpose and Overview 1.1-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.1 Why Develop Recovery Plans?
A Recovery Plan is the road map to recovery.
Recovery is the process by which listed species
and their ecosystems are restored and their
future is safeguarded to the point that
protections under the ESA are no longer needed.
A variety of actions may be necessary to achieve
the goal of recovery, such as the ecological
restoration of habitat or implementation of
conservation measures with stakeholders.
However, without a plan to organize, coordinate
and prioritize the many possible recovery
actions, the effort may be inefficient or even
ineffective. Although recovery actions can, and
should, start immediately upon listing a species
as endangered or threatened under the ESA,
prompt development and implementation of a
recovery plan will ensure that recovery efforts
target limited resources effectively and
efficiently into the future. The recovery plan
serves as a road map for species recovery -- it
lays out where we need to go and how best to
get there. A recovery plan is one of the most
important tools to ensure sound scientific and
logistical decision-making throughout the
recovery process. Primarily, a recovery plan
should do the following:
• Delineate those aspects of the species’
biology, life history, and threats that are
pertinent to its endangerment and
recovery
• Outline and justify a strategy to achieve
recovery
• Identify the actions necessary to achieve
recovery of the species
• Identify goals and criteria by which to
measure the species’ achievement of
recovery
Recovery plans can also serve the following
secondary functions:
• Serve as outreach tools by articulating
the reasons for a species’ endangerment,
as well as why the particular suite of
recovery actions described is the most
effective and efficient approach to
achieving recovery for the species
• Help potential cooperators and partners
understand the rationale behind the
recovery actions identified, and assist
them in identifying how they can
facilitate the species’ recovery
• Serve as a tool for monitoring recovery
activities
• Be used to obtain funding for NMFS
and its partners by identifying necessary
recovery actions and their relative
priority in the recovery process
Recovery plans are guidance documents, not
regulatory documents. No agency or entity is
required by the ESA to implement the recovery
strategy or specific actions in a recovery plan.
However, the ESA clearly envisions recovery
plans as the central organizing tool for guiding
each species’ recovery process. They should
also guide Federal agencies in fulfilling their
obligations under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA,
which calls on all Federal agencies to “utilize
their authorities in furtherance of the purposes
of this Act by carrying out programs for the
conservation of endangered species and
threatened species...” In addition to outlining
strictly proactive measures to achieve the
species’ recovery, plans provide context and a
framework for implementation of other
provisions of the ESA with respect to a
particular species, such as section 7(a)(2)
consultations on Federal agency activities,
development of Habitat Conservation Plans or
Safe Harbor agreements under section 10,
special rules for threatened species under
section 4(d), or the creation of experimental
populations in accordance with section 10(j).
Purpose and Overview 1.2-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.2 Legal and Policy Guidance for Recovery
Planning
Recovery planning is guided by the statutory
language of the ESA and NMFS policies, the
latter of which may reflect interpretation by the
courts (see Box 1.2), and informed by various
other Federal laws. There are no specific
regulations regarding recovery.
The Statute – Section 4(f) of the ESA addresses
the development and implementation of
recovery plans. The following are the key
provisions of this section of the Act:
• 4(f)(1) - Recovery plans shall be
developed and implemented for listed
species unless the Secretary “. . . finds
that such a plan will not promote the
conservation of the species” (see section
2.2.1 - Exemption from Drafting
Recovery Plans).
• 4(f)(1)(A) - Priority is to be given, to
the maximum extent practicable, to “. .
.species, without regard to taxonomic
classification, that are most likely to
benefit from such plans, particularly
those species that are, or may be, in
conflict with construction or other
development projects or other forms of
economic activity.”
• 4(f)(1)(B) - Each plan must include, to
the maximum extent practicable,
“(i) a description of such site-specific
management actions as
may be necessary to achieve the
plan’s goal for the conservation
and survival of the species;
(ii) objective, measurable
criteria which, when met, would
result in a determination . . . that
the species be removed from the
list; and,
(iii) estimates of the time
required and the cost to carry
out those measures needed to
achieve the plan’s goal and to
achieve intermediate steps
toward that goal.”
• 4(f)(2) - To assist in the development
and implementation of recovery plans,
NMFS may appoint recovery teams,
which may include non-NMFS
participants, and which are not subject
to the requirements of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
• 4(f)(4) - NMFS must “. . . provide
public notice and an opportunity for
public review and comment. . .” and
“. . . consider all information presented
during the public comment period prior
to approval of the plan.”
• 4(f)(5) - Prior to implementation of a
recovery plan, each Federal agency
must “. . .consider all information
presented during the public comment
period. . .”
• 4(h)(4) - NMFS shall establish, and
publish in the Federal Register, agency
guidelines that include “ . . . a system
for developing and implementing, on a
priority basis, recovery plans. . .”
Recovery Policies – Five joint policies were
promulgated by NMFS and FWS in 1994 which,
among other things, address a number of aspects
of recovery planning. These include the
following:
• Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer
Review in Endangered Species
Activities (59 FR 34270; FWS and
NMFS 1994a)
• Interagency Cooperative Policy on
Information Standards Under the
Endangered Species Act (59 FR 24271;
FWS and NMFS 1994b)
• Interagency Cooperative Policy on
Recovery Plan Participation and
Implementation Under the Endangered
Species Act (59 FR 34272; FWS and
NMFS 1994c)
• Interagency Cooperative Policy for the
Ecosystem Approach to the Endangered
Species Act (59 FR 34274; FWS and
NMFS 1994d)
• Interagency Cooperative Policy
Regarding the Role of State Agencies in
Endangered Species Act Activities (59
FR 34275; FWS and NMFS 1994e)
Purpose and Overview 1.2-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Box 1.2 - Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Criteria Legal Case
In Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F.Supp. 2d 121 (2001), the court ruled that “... the Fish
and Wildlife Service has acted in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law by
issuing a Recovery Plan that fails to establish (1) objective measureable criteria, which, when
met, would result in a determination that the pronghorn may be removed from the list of
endangered species or, if such criteria are not practicable, an explanation of that conclusion and
(2) estimates of the time required to carry out those measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal
and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal where practicable, or, if such estimates are
not practicable, an explanation of that conclusion.”
Th courts remanded the 1998 Final Revised Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan and directed the
Service to: (1) reassess Sonoran pronghorn recovery criteria and incorporate objective
measureable criteria for delisting; and (2) provide estimates of time required to carry out those
measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal and intermediate steps toward that goal.
The Policy on Recovery Plan Participation and
Implementation Under the Endangered Species
Act focuses solely on recovery planning and
implementation, and is updated and superceded
by this policy and guidance. The other 1994
joint policies, which apply to recovery as well
as other aspects of the endangered species
program, are incorporated into, but not
superceded by, this guidance. Copies are
included in Appendix A. Several other policies
and guidance documents affect various aspects
of recovery planning. For example, the Safe
Harbor Policy (64 FR 32717; FWS and NMFS
1999) provides a tool that may be useful in the
recovery of some species. The application of
these other policies to recovery planning will be
addressed in other sections of the Recovery
Handbook.
Court Decisions – A number of court decisions
have interpreted the recovery planning
provisions of the ESA in conjunction with
challenges to particular recovery plans (see
Appendix B). These decisions have focused
primarily on the mandatory nature of the section
4(f) provisions (unless the agency had shown
that the species qualified under an exception),
and the connection between threats affecting the
species and the development of measurable
criteria and management actions (see Box 1.2)
Other Federal Laws – In addition to the ESA,
there are five other Federal statutes that are
particularly important to developing and
implementing recovery plans, assembling the
administrative record, and involving the public.
• The Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA; 5 U.S.C. 552), enacted in 1966,
provides that any person has the right to
request access to Federal agency
records.
• The Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA; 5 U.S.C., App.; C.F.R. Part
102-3), enacted in 1972, governs the
establishment, management, and
operation of groups, meetings, task
forces, committees, and other similar
groups that qualify as “federal advisory
committees” under the Act.
• The Administrative Procedure Act
(APA; 5 U.S.C. 551-59, 701-06, 1305,
3105, 3344, 5372, 7521), passed in
1946, identifies the process for making
regulations, provides for participation
by the public in the rulemaking process,
and sets standards for judicial review of
agency decisions.
• The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.,),
passed in 1969, assures that all branches
of government give proper
consideration to the environment prior
to undertaking any major federal action
which significantly affects the
environment.
• The Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501-20), enacted in 1995,
Purpose and Overview 1.2-3
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
minimizes the burden that
Federal paperwork imposes on
the public and improves the
quality and use of Federal
information.
• The Information Quality Act (Pub. L.
106-554), enacted in 2002 requires each
Federal agency to develop guidelines to
ensure the quality of disseminated
information and a process by which a
person can seek a correction of
disseminated information (see section
4.6 Information Standards, and
Appendix N. Information Quality
Guidelines).
In summary, with respect to recovery planning,
we have certain statutory requirements as well
as other requirements imposed by either policy
or court decisions. This statutory, policy, and
judicial guidance requires certain elements to be
included in a plan and incorporates certain
standard elements into the process of drafting
plans (consultation, quality data, public
participation etc.). Within these sideboards,
NMFS and its staff are given considerable
discretion to determine the details of how we go
about developing specific recovery plans and
what they look like. Recovery planners should
view this as an opportunity to use their
creativity and ingenuity to craft the most
effective and practical recovery program for
each species in their care.
Purpose and Overview 1.3-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.3 A Comprehensive Approach to Recovery
Species do not live in a vacuum. They interact
with, depend upon, or affect other species and
their environments. Understanding the
interactions between species and their
ecosystems is fundamental to recovery planning.
Recovery plans should be useful to all NMFS
biologists who implement the ESA, such as
those working on consultations or HCPs, as well
as all agencies or individuals that may affect the
species. Likewise, even the best of plans may
achieve little for species recovery if they are not
implemented because they are not practical, they
are misunderstood, or they are opposed by those
with the authority or means to implement them.
To ensure lasting recovery, this planning
guidance takes a comprehensive approach to
species recovery on multiple scales – within the
ecosystem, within the ESA, within NMFS, with
other agencies, and with stakeholders and the
public.
1.3.1. The Ecosystem Approach
In recognition of the role that other species and
their environments play in species recovery, the
ESA clearly states that one of its purposes is to:
“... provide a means whereby the ecosystems
upon which endangered species and threatened
species depend may be conserved ...” (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq., section 2(a)). Indeed, conserving
species’ ecosystems appears first in the list of
the ESA’s purposes. The role of the ecosystem
is stressed further in the Interagency
Cooperative Policy for the Ecosystem Approach
to the Endangered Species Act (FWS and
NMFS 1994d). Wherever possible, recovery
plans should focus on the broader view of the
species’ health, by working to ensure the health
of its habitat and ecosystem functions, rather
than the narrower view of looking at the species
only. As implied in the ESA, conserving the
ecosystems upon which a species depends is
more likely to ensure that species’ long-term
viability. In keeping with the ESA’s directive,
this guidance focuses not only on the listed
species themselves but also on restoring their
habitats as functioning ecosystems.
1.3.2 The Significance of Threats in
Recovery Planning
Recovery plans have long focused on the
demographics, habitat and other characteristics
of a species’ life history. These are extremely
important, as knowledge of a species’ biological
needs and constraints is imperative to making
viable conservation management decisions for a
species. However, merely increasing a species’
numbers, range and abundance does not ensure
its long term health and sustainability; only by
alleviating threats can lasting recovery be
achieved. Identification of, and strategies for
dealing with, the threats that are contributing to
the status of the species as threatened or
endangered, or are likely to recur in the
foreseeable future, should be central to the
recovery plan and program. A recovery plan
must also outline the characteristics of a species
that make it vulnerable to, and that would allow
it to recover from, environmental, demographic,
and human-caused threats. Finally, recovery
actions and monitoring schemes should
specifically reduce or remove each of the threats
identified for the species, and monitor the
success in controlling them.
The reasons for a species’ decline often
comprise an interrelated, interactive suite of
factors, rather than a linear cause-and-effect of a
single factor. Therefore, a recovery plan must
not only identify the different threats, but also
analyze and determine the relationships among
threats so that a recovery strategy can be
designed to effectively reduce these threats. A
threats assessment can be used in recovery
planning to determine the relative importance of
various threats to a species (see section 5.1.6.7,
Reasons for Listing/Threats, and Appendix C).
A threats assessment includes (1) identifying
threats and their sources, (2) determining the
effects of threats, and (3) ranking each threat
based on relative effects. This guidance
recommends using a threats assessment for
species with multiple threats to help identify the
relative importance of each threat to the species’
status, and, therefore, to prioritize recovery
actions in a manner most likely to be effective
for the species’ recovery.
Purpose and Overview 1.3-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.3.3 Synergies with Other Parts of the ESA
While section 4(f) and 7(a)(1) are the only
sections of the ESA that focus solely on
recovery, it is fair to say that all sections of the
ESA affect the goal of recovery of listed
species, in one way or another. With this in
mind, this guidance highlights potential
synergies between recovery and other sections
of the ESA (sections 7(a)(2), 10, 6, etc.). The
resulting plans should provide a context and
framework for guiding implementation of the
other provisions of the ESA with respect to the
target species.
1.3.4 Partnerships in Recovery Planning
A plan is just that: a plan. For results, the plan
must be implemented. NMFS has neither the
resources nor the authority to implement many,
if not most, recovery actions. Communication,
coordination, and collaboration with a wide
variety of potential stakeholders are essential to
the acceptance and implementation of recovery
plans. In addition, recovery plans must be
designed so that all players, whether they were
involved in writing the plan or not, understand
the rationale behind the recovery program, buy
into this program, and recognize their role in its
implementation. As policies indicate, NMFS is
committed to working with stakeholders
throughout the entire recovery process, from
planning through implementation to recovery
and delisting. For the purposes of recovery
planning, we define the term stakeholder
broadly as those who have an interest in the
recovery of the species. This may include other
bureaus within NMFS, other government
agencies, affected landowners, academic
scientists, conservation organizations, industry,
etc. The addition of these participants may
sometimes make the planning process more
complicated and time-consuming. However,
involving stakeholders early and throughout the
process may help achieve necessary
understanding of the species’ biology, threats
and recovery needs, identify and resolve
implementation issues and concerns at the
planning stage, increase buy-in, and facilitate
more effective implementation (see sections 2.4,
Preparing for Stakeholder Involvement, and 4.3,
Managing Stakeholder Involvement).
Purpose and Overview 1.4-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.4 Opportunities for Streamlining and
Flexibility
The guidance notes throughout where
opportunities exist to streamline recovery plans,
e.g., by incorporating other documents by
reference and reducing tangential or irrelevant
information. One opportunity for streamlining
that will provide a means of keeping our
recovery plans current and useful in the most
efficient way possible, involves the use of a
page numbering system such as that used in this
guidance (see section 4.7, Formatting). Such a
system allows for revisions or updates of
individual sections of the plan more frequently
without the need to undertake a major plan
revision effort (see section 6.2, Modifying the
Recovery Plan). Another opportunity lies in the
use of electronic media and the posting of
electronic files. This should greatly enhance our
ability to distribute information and post plan
updates and addenda (see section 5.2.4,
Approval and Distribution Process, and section
6.3, Notification, Review, and Approval of Plan
Modifications).
With respect to streamlining the actual recovery
planning process, however, two particular areas
of planning standout as needing, if anything,
additional attention and time. These are early
communication and coordination (see sections
2.3, Organizing the Recovery Planning Effort;
2.4, Preparing for Stakeholder Involvement; 4.3,
Managing Stakeholder Involvement in the
Planning Process; and 4.4, Public
Communication and Outreach), and the thought
process involved with synthesizing the
background information into a cohesive,
effective recovery strategy and program (see
section 5.1.7, Recovery Strategy, and section
5.1.9, Recovery Program). Indeed, this
guidance strongly encourages additional time
and attention for each of these areas. While this
may appear to be an added burden and contrary
to the concept of streamlining, this early
investment in these parts of the process is
anticipated to actually front-load the recovery
process and facilitate smoother and more rapid
implementation.
Purpose and Overview 1.5-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.5 Overview of the Planning Process
The recovery process comprises a suite of inter-related
steps that fall generally into the
following three primary phases: (1) pre-planning;
(2) planning; and (3) implementation
and monitoring (Figure 1). In the pre-planning
phase, a recovery outline is developed (see
section 3.0, The Recovery Outline). The
recovery outline provides interim strategies and
goals for recovering the species and lays out
how and by whom a recovery plan is to be
developed. The outline may also note the rare
case that a species is exempt from recovery
planning (see section 2.2.1, Exemption from
Drafting Recovery Plans). The planning phase
involves the actual writing of the recovery plan,
including the solicitation and incorporation of
comments via peer review and public comment
(see section 4.0, Planning Considerations
Purpose and Overview 1.5-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
(inclusive); and section 5.2, Procedural
Requirements). The implementation and
monitoring phase involves the implementation
of the recovery actions called for in the recovery
plan or outline (if a plan has not been developed
yet), monitoring of implementation and
effectiveness of the actions, and adaptation of
the plan, if necessary (see section 6.1 for a brief
overview of implementation and monitoring.
These will be dealt with in greater detail in other
sections of the Recovery Handbook). Periodic
review of the status of the species and of the
recovery plan may lead to updates or revisions
of the recovery plan (see section 6.2, Modifying
the Recovery Plan) and/or downlisting or
delisting of the species.
These phases are not step-wise or mutually
exclusive; rather, they are in a continuous state
of flow and feedback. Implementation and
monitoring often begin before a plan, or even an
outline, is completed and plans are updated or
revised as needed, according to the results of
monitoring. In some cases, a planning process
may need to return to the pre-planning phase,
e.g., when a complete revision of the recovery
plan is needed and a determination of how to
develop the plan must be revisited.
1.5.1 Timeframes
Recovery outlines should be completed within
60 days of listing, and approved within 90 days
of listing. These are completed internally, by
agency biologists, in consultation with other
biologists (those who worked on the listing and
those who will be working on consultations or
HCPs) as well as species experts, and possibly
some stakeholders. The recovery outline is an
interim document that is based on the best
currently available information – usually the
listing package. The short time-frame allowed
for completion of the recovery outline is
purposeful. It is meant to ensure that its
completion will not detract from the recovery
planning effort that should be underway shortly
after the species is listed. The timing of the
outline is meant to force biologists who will be
responsible for the writing of the recovery plan,
consulting on the species, or otherwise working
with the species to communicate with each other
and put preliminary strategies for recovering the
species on paper as soon as feasible. Not only
will this ‘get the ball rolling’ for development of
the recovery plan, but a timely recovery outline
can inform ongoing activities, such as HCP
development and section 7 consultation, so these
activities do not inadvertently foreclose
recovery options before the recovery plan is
developed.
Final recovery plans should be completed within
2.5 years of listing, unless an extension for a
particularly complex plan has been approved by
the Headquarters office. In order to reach this
time frame, drafts should be completed within
1.5 years of listing. Table 1 describes the
required timeframes for recovery planning.
Table 1. Timeframes for Recovery Outline and
Recovery Plan Development
60 days from date of
listing
Recovery outline
completed and submitted
to Regional Office
90 days from date of
listing
Recovery outline
approved
18 months from date
of listing
Draft recovery plan
completed and distributed
for public comment and
peer review
2.5 years (30 months)
from date of listing
Final recovery plan
completed and approved
Purpose and Overview 1.5-3
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
1.5.2 Agency Roles and Responsibilities
The following table outlines the general responsibilities of the Regions and Headquarters Office for
NMFS.
Table 2. NMFS Roles and Responsibilities
Regional Administrator Headquarters
Provide guidelines and training on national policy and
legal requirements of recovery planning.
Prepare and approve a Recovery Outline for any listed
species for which the Region has lead – draft within 60
days from final listing rule publication; approval within
90 days. Provide copy to Headquarters.
Review draft Recovery Outline from region for major
policy issues or controversies. Prepare and approve a
Recovery Outline for listed species for which Protected
Resources has lead – draft within 60 days from final
listing rule publication; approval within 90 days.
Publish Notice of intent to prepare a recovery plan and
request information in Federal Register (for species
with regional lead).
Publish Notice of intent to prepare a recovery plan and
request information in Federal Register (for species
with Headquarters lead).
Establish recovery teams, if appropriate, to develop the
recovery plan and oversee its implementation.
Establish recovery teams, if appropriate, to develop the
recovery plan and oversee its implementation (for
species with Headquarters lead).
Prepare draft and final recovery plans. Prepare draft and final recovery plans (for species with
Headquarters lead).
Review and provide comments to regions on the
technical/agency draft of new or revised plans
regarding adherence to existing policies and guidelines.
Ensure appropriate peer review, public review and
comment.
Ensure appropriate peer review, public review and
comment (for species with Headquarters lead).
Obtain concurrence by Headquarters. Approve and
disseminate all recovery plans. Print within 90 days of
approval; distribute within 120 days, subject to
availability of funds.
Approve and disseminate all recovery plans (for
species with Headquarters lead). Print within 90 days
of approval; distribute within 120 days, subject to
availability of funds.
Release to press and or publish a public notice of
availability of new or revised recovery plans. Provide
copy to Headquarters.
Release to press and or publish a public notice of
availability of new or revised recovery plans (for
species with Headquarters lead).
Direct and coordinate recovery plan implementation or
take actions to conserve listed species if plan is not
completed. Track and review progress.
Direct and coordinate recovery plan implementation or
take actions to conserve listed species if plan is not
completed for species (for species with Headquarters
lead). Track and review progress.
Revise and update recovery plans, as necessary.
Inform all cooperators of modifications in the plan.
Revise and update recovery plans, as necessary (for
species with Headquarters lead). Inform all
cooperators of modifications in the plan.
Maintain national website with updated recovery plans
Report to Headquarters on status of recovery plans,
recovery implementation, and status of the species.
Compile regional and Headquarters reports on
recovery implementation progress, species status, and
the status of draft, revised or approved recovery plans
for Assistant Administrator’s submission to Congress.
Preplanning Considerations 2.1-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
2.0 Preplanning Considerations
Before beginning work on a recovery plan, a
number of preliminary decisions must be made
and actions must be taken. These decisions set
the stage for recovery planning and encompass
considerations such as the scope of the plan,
logistical issues, interim management of the
species until a recovery plan is completed,
participation in the planning process, appointing
a recovery team, and setting up the administrative
record for the recovery process. The Recovery
Outline (see section 3.0) provides a template for
documenting preplanning decisions.
2.1 Determining the Scope of the Recovery
Plan
Single-species recovery plans have been the most
common type of plan prepared since the
enactment of the ESA. However, multiple
species plans and ecosystem plans have gained
increasing currency since the mid-1990s. It is
important to note that, although the ESA appears
to focus on the individual species, subspecies, or
distinct population segments (DPSs)2, the
purposes of the ESA include conserving the
ecosystems upon which listed species depend.
Recovery plans should aim to address threats by
restoring or protecting ecosystem functions or
processes whenever and wherever possible (as
opposed to actions that require long-term and
possibly expensive management programs).
This approach is science-based and provides a
means for required habitat to be maintained long-term
in a dynamic way by natural processes. This
broader perspective should be infused into all
recovery plans, whether they be for single species
(including subspecies and DPSs), or multiple
species.
Three possible biological scopes for recovery
efforts exist, and choosing the appropriate scope
requires careful consideration:
• Single species/subspecies/DPS
• Multiple species
• Ecosystem
A fourth scope, recovery plans for individual
populations of a wide-ranging species (such as
peregrine falcons and bald eagles), was used
occasionally in the past. Because this has led to
problems later in the process, we now recommend
that planning documents for entities smaller than
the listed entity should only be developed in the
context of recovery of the entire listed entity,
using recovery criteria clearly set out for the entire
listed entity (see section 2.1.1, Single
Species/Subspecies/DPS Plans, for further
discussion).
The appropriate scope for the recovery planning
effort may be evident from the listing package
(whether it was prepared for a single species, a
group of species, or for multiple species within an
imperiled ecosystem). However, there may be
circumstances where it is appropriate to plan
recovery at a different scope than that at which the
species was listed, for such reasons as the
following:
• If a species is without a recovery plan and
occupies the same habitat and has similar
recovery needs as another species or
group of species, it may be possible to
incorporate the species into a recovery
plan for the other species. This can be
done when a recovery plan is being
written for the other species or by
incorporating recovery criteria,
management actions, and time and cost
estimates for the new species into an
existing plan by preparing an amendment
2 A Distinct Population Segment is a
population segment that is discrete in relation to
the remainder of the species to which it belongs,
and significant to the species to which it belongs.
An Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of
Pacific Salmon is considered a DPS. DPSs must
be designated through a rulemaking. See the
Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segments Under the
Endangered Species Act (FWS and NOAA 1996)
for more discussion of discreteness and
significance.
Preplanning Considerations 2.1-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
to the existing plan (see section
6.2.3, Plan Addenda).
• In some cases, it may be preferable to
prepare a plan for a single species which
was listed in the same listing rule as
other species. This may occur, for
instance, when circumstance dictates a
need to prepare immediately a plan for a
particular species because unique
taxonomy, threats, or other reasons
indicate the need for more species-specific
recovery strategies, or if an
opportunity arises for a particular species
expert to expedite planning.
• If a number of species that occupy the
same ecosystem were listed separately, it
may be most efficient and effective to
prepare a multiple-species or ecosystem
plan. Multiple-species plans may
provide the opportunity to explicitly
address any contradictory recovery needs
of two or more species. In addition,
including numerous species within an
area in one plan can be more user-friendly
for local property owners and
planners. Plan revisions may provide an
opportunity to combine species that were
previously addressed in separate plans or
that do not have plans. However, it is
necessary to ensure that species included
in a multiple-species plan are each given
adequate and appropriate attention.
2.1.1 Single Species/Subspecies/DPS Plans
Given that taxa are listed and delisted as
“species” (defined in the ESA as including
subspecies and DPSs), a single species plan is the
most straightforward scope to use for an
individual planning effort. If the species is
distinct from other listed species in its
floral/faunal community with respect to its
habitat requirements and threats and/or if it is the
only listed species in its general geographic area,
a single-species plan is likely the most
appropriate.
Although a DPS is treated as a separate species
under the ESA and thus may have a separate
recovery plan, it is important to note that a
recovery plan cannot be used to designate a DPS.
Designation of a DPS requires a rulemaking
process.
2.1.2 Multiple Species Plans
If two or more species occur in the same
geographical area or jurisdiction, and share
common threats or management needs, a multiple
species plan may be the most appropriate. This
type of plan may also be helpful when species
with overlapping ranges have seemingly
contradictory recovery needs that need to be
resolved early to accommodate the recovery of
both species. Many authors have recommended
multiple-species recovery plans as a way to plan
more efficiently and to better implement
management actions (Franklin 1993; Clark 1994;
Tear et al. 1995; Carroll et al. 1996; Simberloff
1997). Despite this, a comprehensive study of
recovery plans conducted by the Society for
Conservation Biology (SCB) concluded that the
multiple species plans that were approved as of
2000 paid less attention to the individual listed
species included in each plan compared with
single species plans (Clark and Harvey 2002).
The SCB study found that individual listed species
in multiple-species plans had less robust scientific
underpinning, objectives, and recommendations,
and that trends in status for individual species
tended to be less positive than those for species
with single-species recovery plans. Therefore, the
benefits of preparing a multiple-species plan
should be carefully assessed, and the following
considerations should be kept in mind:
• Each listed species in the plan should be
fully addressed in terms of status, threats,
and biological needs and constraints (this
does not mean that these items need be
addressed for each species separately but
that a reader should be able to discern
each species’ status, threats, etc., easily
from the information provided).
• Objective, measurable recovery criteria
must be developed for each species,
Preplanning Considerations 2.1-3
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
although it may be possible for
the same criteria to apply to
more than one species where the
threats are identical.
• Recovery actions should be consolidated
for multiple species whenever possible to
maximize effectiveness, but should
indicate which species will be affected.
• Individual species can be independently
listed, reclassified, or delisted, and the
plan updated or revised accordingly.
• In general, multiple-species plans will be
more expansive documents, and means
for keeping them updated and useful
should be considered during the planning
process.
2.1.3 Ecosystem Plans
If several listed species in a shared biotic
community rely on protection and/or restoration
of their ecosystem to reach recovery, an
ecosystem plan may be appropriate. (Many
recovery plans identified as "ecosystem" plans in
the past are actually multiple-species plans). In
this type of plan, most recovery actions will be
directed toward ensuring the sustainability of the
ecosystem upon which all of the listed species
(and other species) depend. While ecosystem
functions and status comprise the cornerstone of
this type of plan, the role and recovery needs of
individual listed species must be addressed
within the ecosystem context. The biological
connection between the ecosystem and the listed
species should be clearly described. Recovery
objectives and criteria, including those linked to
the threats that were the basis for listing, must be
provided on a species by species basis, although
ecosystem-based criteria may be included as
well. One of the few examples of an ecosystem
plan is the Recovery Plan for the Endangered and
Threatened Species of Ash Meadows (FWS
1990).
Preplanning Considerations 2.2-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
2.2 Special Considerations
2.2.1 Exemption from Drafting Recovery
Plans
Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA requires NMFS to
develop and implement recovery plans for
species listed as endangered or threatened,
“unless [the Service] finds such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species.” (ESA,
section 4(f)(1)) There are very few acceptable
justifications for an exemption from having a
recovery plan, and a determination that an
exemption is warranted should be well
documented in the administrative record. The
determination that a plan will not promote the
conservation of the listed species must be
approved by the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries (NMFS). Foreign species (species
whose historic and current ranges occur entirely
under the jurisdiction of other countries) qualify
for the exemption.
The following justifications may exempt species
from having a recovery plan:
• Delisting is anticipated in the near future
because (1) the species is presumed to be
extinct or (2) the species is determined to
have been listed in error, possibly due to
new taxonomic or status information.
• The species’ current and historic ranges
occur entirely under the jurisdiction of
other countries, i.e., it is a foreign
species. Generally, the U.S. has little
authority to implement actions needed to
recover foreign species, and therefore, a
recovery plan would not promote the
conservation of these species. While
importation into the U.S. and the
commercial transportation or sale in
foreign commerce of such species by any
person subject to U.S. jurisdiction are
prohibited unless authorized, the taking
of listed species is prohibited only within
the U.S., within the territorial seas of the
U.S., and on the high seas. The
management and recovery of listed
foreign species remain the responsibility
of the countries in which the species
occur, with the help of available technical
and monetary assistance from the U.S.
• Other circumstances that are not easily
foreseen, but in which the species would
not benefit from a recovery plan.
In the past, existence of an alternative plan was
used to justify an exemption from having a
recovery plan, but this guidance considers
adoption of an alternative plan a streamlining
method of recovery plan preparation (see section
2.3.2.1, Use of Alternative Recovery Plans).
It should be noted that an exemption does not
exempt NMFS from preparing for recovery of the
species. At a minimum, a recovery outline
(section 3.0) should be prepared for every
domestic listed species.
2.2.2 Deferring Recovery Planning
There are some circumstances in which it may be
necessary to defer the development of a recovery
plan via an exemption approved by the
Headquarters office. A plan cannot be deferred
indefinitely, however, and a recovery outline,
however general, should be prepared if at all
possible. Circumstances in which a plan may be
deferred include the following:
• A need exists to resolve taxonomic
questions because new taxonomic
information has come to light since listing
and the resolution of the taxonomic
question is expected to have a substantial
bearing on the recovery planning process.
• The best available scientific information
indicates that the species may be extinct,
and therefore development of a recovery
plan is not prudent unless and until the
species’ existence/extinction is confirmed.
If the species is later discovered to exist,
recovery planning should commence
promptly. In the meantime, a recovery
outline can guide surveys and should
include a contingency plan in the case of
re-discovery of the species. In this case,
the species may be only temporarily
Preplanning Considerations 2.2-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
exempt from the recovery
planning requirement.
2.2.3 Transnational and Transboundary
Species
For purposes of this guidance, transnational
species are those listed species with geographical
ranges both within the U.S. and within one or
more international borders. This can be due to
migration or because the resident population
straddles the border of the U.S. and one or more
other countries. For transnational species, it is
important to consider appointing one or more
recovery team members from the other nation(s).
If a representative from the other nation(s) is not
appointed to the team, regular communication
and cooperation with appropriate agencies in the
other nation is important. It is also possible that
individuals or representatives of agencies or
interest groups from these nations be invited to
attend recovery team meetings as observers. For
the development of reclassification or delisting
criteria, an early decision must be made as to
whether individuals of the species that occur
outside the U.S. or management actions taken
outside the U.S. are necessary in order to achieve
the recovery goal (keeping in mind that recovery
criteria should be based on the biological needs
of the species). If management actions outside
the U.S. are necessary, early and continuing
international cooperation is very important.
Transboundary species comprise a special case of
transnational species. Canada, Mexico and the
U.S. are all parties to the Memorandum of
Understanding Establishing the
Canada/Mexico/United States Trilateral
Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem
Conservation and Management (Trilateral
Agreement; Appendix D). Article III of the
Trilateral Agreement states that the Trilateral
Committee will... “develop, implement, review
and coordinate specific cooperative conservation
projects and programs; and integrate its projects
and programs into the conservation priorities of
the country in which those projects and programs
take place.” The FWS International Affairs
Office - Division of International Conservation
coordinates the Trilateral meetings, although
NMFS is also involved. For NMFS, questions
with regard to treatment of transboundary species
can be directed to the Office of Protected
Resources. (See the list of phone numbers in the
front of this guidance.)
A similar agreement exists between Canada and
the United States, entitled the Framework for
Cooperation between the U.S. Department of the
Interior and Environment Canada in the Protection
and Recovery of Wild Species at Risk
(Framework; Appendix E). The Framework aims
to exchange information and technical expertise,
evaluate the status of species, promote increased
partnerships between the countries, identify
species needing bilateral action, and “promote the
development and implementation of joint or multi-national
recovery plans for species identified as
endangered or threatened.” Starting in 2001, both
NMFS and Department of Fisheries and Oceans
(DFO) Canada are participating in bilateral
Framework meetings hosted by DOI and
Environment Canada in order to facilitate bilateral
protection and recovery of marine species. The
FWS contact for the Framework is the
Washington Office of Endangered Species, which
should be kept informed of new recovery efforts
with Canada to facilitate coordination. NMFS
headquarters may be contacted regarding
questions on marine species, but NMFS has been
working through FWS on Framework issues.
2.2.4 Species Occurring on Tribal Lands
Although Native American Tribes share the
general goal of conserving endangered and
threatened species on their lands, Tribal lands are
not Federal public lands, and NMFS has special
responsibility to address listed species in
accordance with the following principles:
• Respect Tribal rights
• Acknowledge the treaty obligations of the
United States towards Tribes
• Use the government-to-government
relationship in dealing with Tribes
• Protect natural resources that the Federal
government holds in trust for Tribes
Preplanning Considerations 2.2-3
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
• Solicit and utilize the expertise of
affected Indian Tribes by having tribal
representation on recovery teams, as
appropriate
• Work cooperatively with affected Tribes
to identify and implement recovery
Departmental and Executive policies related to
tribes are contained in Appendix F and include
the following: Joint Secretarial Order on
American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act (Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce 1997); American
Indian and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S.
Department of Commerce (1995); Executive
Order on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (2000); Executive
Order on Indian Sacred Sites (1996); Presidential
Memorandum on Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments (1994; 59 FR 10877).
One example of cooperation between Tribes and
NMFS is the partnership between the Skagit
System Cooperative and the NWFSC Watershed
Program to recover threatened chinook salmon in
the Skagit River Basin (see Box 2.2)
Preplanning Considerations 2.2-4
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
2.2.5 Integration of MMPA and ESA
All marine mammals are protected under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The
MMPA specifies that conservation plans should
be completed for any species or stock designated
as depleted, which includes those that are listed
as endangered or threatened under the ESA. The
MMPA defines “depleted” as a marine mammal
species or stock that is below its optimum
sustainable population (OSP) level or that is
listed as threatened or endangered under the
ESA. The OSP level is the number of animals
that will result in the maximum productivity of
the population or the species, keeping in mind the
carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of
the ecosystem of which they form a constituent
element. Thus, in some cases, there is a different
threshold for a depleted designation under the
MMPA than for a threatened or endangered
listing under the ESA.
The MMPA requires that conservation plans be
modeled after ESA recovery plans; therefore, all
MMPA conservation plans should follow the
format of an ESA recovery plan, as described in
this guidance. For those marine mammals that
are depleted due to their listing under the ESA, a
recovery plan can serve the dual purpose of
compliance with the requirement for a recovery
plan under the ESA and for a conservation plan
under the MMPA. For marine mammal stocks
that are depleted but listed under the ESA, the
guidance for recovery plans remains consistent
with requirements for a conservation plan.
Senate report 100-592 indicated that managers
should include the basic components of a
recovery plan as specified in section 4(f)(1)(B) of
the ESA, as well as the following:
(1) an assessment of the status of
the species or stock and its
essential habitat; (2) a
description of the nature,
magnitude, and causes of any
population declines or loss of
essential habitat; (3) an
assessment of existing and
possible threats to the species
and its habitat; (4) a discussion
of critical information gaps; (5) a
description and discussion of
research and management that
could be undertaken to meet the
objectives of the plan; and (6) a
schedule for implementing the
research and management actions
identified in the plan.
This direction for conservation plans comports
with the requirements of a recovery plan. The
assessment of status, trends, habitat needs, causes
of decline, threats, and critical information gaps
can be included in the Background section of the
plan. Research and management actions can be
included in the Recovery Action Narrative section
of the plan. The schedule for implementation of
the plan can be covered in the Implementation
Schedule of the recovery plan. Since the goal of
OSP under the MMPA may be “higher” than that
of delisting under the ESA, a recovery plan would
include goals and criteria for delisting under the
ESA and may also include goals, criteria and
actions for attaining OSP.
Take reduction plans, which are developed
pursuant to section 118 of the MMPA to address
incidental mortality and serious injury of
“strategic”3 marine mammals affected by
commercial fishing operations, should be
incorporated into recovery/conservation plans
when completed. More information on take
reduction plans can be found at 50 CFR part 229,
which provides general guidance for
implementing section 118 of the MMPA.
It should be noted that an enhancement permit
under the MMPA can only be issued if the taking
3 The term “strategic stock” means a
marine mammal stock (1) for which the level of
direct human-caused mortality exceeds the
potential biological removal level; (2) which,
based on the best available scientific information,
is declining and is likely to be listed as a
threatened species under the ESA within the
foreseeable future; or (3) which is listed as a
threatened or endangered species under the ESA,
or is designated as depleted under the MMPA.
Preplanning Considerations 2.2-5
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
or importation is consistent with an MMPA
conservation plan or an ESA recovery plan.
Thus, recovery plans for marine mammals should
address issues such as rescue, rehabilitation,
captive breeding etc., for which requests for
enhancement permits can be anticipated.
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
2.3 Organizing the Recovery Planning Effort
Recovery planning requires NMFS to organize a
process addressing both inside-NMFS and
outside-NMFS involvement. For the simplest
planning efforts, it may be sufficient to approach
organizational issues in an ad hoc fashion. For
more complex efforts, however, these
organizational issues should be explicitly
addressed in order to identify clearly
expectations, responsibilities, and lines of
communication. It is also important to put
together a timeline for completion of key steps,
which includes (and may help set) the frequency
of public meetings and plan reviews, and time
limits for each. The majority of these
considerations will be addressed in the Recovery
Outline (section 3.0).
The inside-NMFS logistics include such issues as
the following:
• Who will be NMFS’ lead
region/recovery biologist for the species?
• What type and level of coordination
needs to occur among recovery,
consultation, and permitting biologists,
etc.?
• What other program or agency personnel
(e.g., Refuges, Fisheries, Contaminants,
Law Enforcement, National Ocean
Service, Marine Sanctuaries, etc.) should
have involvement in recovery planning
and implementation?
• Who will write, edit, or review the plan?
• Who will facilitate meetings (should an
outside facilitator be brought in)?
• Who will maintain administrative files,
including data and comments provided
by experts and stakeholders?
• How can communication and
coordination best be facilitated among
the Field, Regional, and Headquarters
Offices, and other agencies, including
foreign agencies, when appropriate?
• Who will be the NMFS contact person
for stakeholder inquiries?
• Who will need to review the plan before
it can be approved and how much time
can be devoted to review?
Involving experts and stakeholders outside NMFS
in the planning process has become increasingly
important. Whether it be through informal
contacts, information-sharing sessions, task
forces, a recovery team, or other means, the
relationships, roles, and responsibilities among
planning parties again should be explicit. Some of
the outside-NMFS organizational considerations
include the following:
• Does the species or ecosystem occur on
Tribal lands/waters or cross international
borders?
• Who will be integrally involved in plan
preparation, and who will provide peer
reviews?
• What stakeholders will be involved at
which stages in the effort and how?
• What are the most appropriate methods
for contacting/involving stakeholders?
• Do you need to plan time for public
meetings?
• What is the most appropriate length of
time for public comment periods?
• Should a facilitator be used in running
stakeholder meetings?
The outcome of all these considerations should be
a proposed organizational structure and timeline
that can be used to assign or negotiate roles and
responsibilities with all those involved in the
planning effort, and to plan for their completion.
For more information on recovery teams, see
section 2.3.3, Appointing a Recovery Team, and
4.2, Managing a Recovery Team.
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
2.3.1 Coordination
In order to heed the direction in the 1994
Interagency Policy on Recovery Plan
Participation and Implementation of the ESA
(FWS and NMFS 1994c) that recovery plans be
completed in a timely way, e.g., within two and a
half years of listing, the planning process must
run as smoothly as possible. This indicates a
clear need for effective leadership and for
accountability in terms of plan production and
quality. As in any type of project, this outcome
is best achieved by identifying someone as the
Recovery Plan Coordinator. The Recovery Plan
Coordinator should be designated prior to
beginning any recovery plan, and this
individual’s role should be clearly conveyed to
everyone involved in the planning process. The
Recovery Plan Coordinator’s standard role is to be
the key person involved in all aspects of the
planning process to the degree necessary to keep
recovery plan development on course.
In some cases, the Recovery Plan Coordinator will
be the biologist who listed the species; this
individual will then go on to prepare the recovery
outline and write the recovery plan; in other cases,
the Recovery Plan Coordinator will not be directly
involved in preparing planning documents but will
work closely with plan authors and contributors.
For complex, high-profile species, a full-time
species coordinator may be designated, as has
been done for the white abalone. For species with
recovery teams, the Recovery Plan Coordinator
will typically be the Recovery Team Liaison (and,
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-3
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
in some cases, the Team Leader). Some
situations may require a small group of
coordinators rather than a single person; in these
cases, individual roles and responsibilities should
be clearly spelled out before embarking on the
planning project. It is important to note that the
Recovery Plan Coordinator for a specific plan
may or may not be the person designated in the
field or regional office as the Recovery
Coordinator (at the regional level, this role may
involve administrative and review functions
rather than coordination of specific projects, but
each office is different). In any event, the key
consideration is that someone be assigned to take
responsibility for seeing the recovery plan
through both the production and review phases to
a timely completion.
Note that it is important, in terms of
accountability, for the Recovery Plan
Coordinator to be a NMFS employee, even if the
plan is being contracted out or is in any other
way being produced out of house. In cases where
primary responsibility for producing and
implementing a recovery plan has been delegated
to a state agency or other organization, it may be
appropriate to have the NMFS Recovery Plan
Coordinator work hand-in-hand with a co-coordinator
from that agency or organization. In
all cases it is critical to have a key NMFS person
responsible for ensuring that the process does not
stall, that communication among all involved
parties is open and constructive, and that
planning products meet NMFS standards. These
requirements clearly demand organizational
skills, an ability to work well with others, a
willingness to take responsibility for outcomes,
and a conviction that the recovery plan will serve
the best interests of the species.
2.3.2 Plan Preparation
Recovery plans can be written by any of several
different entities, depending on the situation. In
fact, all or part of a recovery plan may have been
written by a different entity and adopted by
NMFS. It should be borne in mind that, whoever
writes the plan, the ESA recovery plan is a
NMFS document and NMFS is ultimately
responsible for its content. The following are
considerations in determining who should write a
recovery plan.
2.3.2.1 Use of Alternative Recovery Plans
In some cases, an alternative plan, already existing
or about to be completed, serves the purpose of a
recovery plan. An alternative plan is usually
written by another agency or organization, but
must be the functional equivalent of a NMFS
recovery plan. In the past, existence of an
alternative plan was used to justify an exemption
from having a recovery plan, but this guidance
considers adoption of an alternative plan a
streamlining method of recovery plan preparation.
Alternative plans must have the elements of a
recovery plan required by the ESA (site-specific
management actions necessary to achieve the
plan’s goal; objective, measurable criteria for
meeting that goal; and estimates of the time and
cost required to carry out those measures) as well
as those required by policy directives and this
guidance. Alternative plans that do not meet these
requirements may be adopted as recovery plans
once appropriate changes are made to ensure that
they meet the requirements. In some cases, these
changes are most appropriately made in the plan
itself; in others they may be made in the form of
an addendum. Alternative plans must undergo
public review and comment.
2.3.2.2 Use of NMFS Biologists to Write
Recovery Plans
In some cases it may be deemed efficient to have
an individual or a small group of individuals
within NMFS, often experts on the species, write
a recovery plan. NMFS biologists are frequently
used when a species has a small range or exists
largely on publicly owned or managed land and
waters and the number of potential stakeholders is
small, making coordination less complex. A
NMFS biologist may also write a recovery plan
when the biologist is one of few experts on the
species.
In the case of publicly owned lands, such as state
parks, conservation areas, national marine
sanctuaries or national wildlife refuges, the
mission of the management area may coincide
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-4
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
with the recovery of the species. This may also
be the case with privately owned lands, such as
trusts and preserves. In these cases, complexity
and conflict are likely to be low, and it is
possible for NMFS biologists to write effective
recovery plans, particularly for species with a
small range.
It is tempting to assign NMFS biologists to write
recovery plans for the sake of efficiency, even if
it is not the most appropriate means of
completing a plan for that species. However, too
many recovery plans are not used because they
do not have the buy-in of those needed to carry
out recovery actions. It is important to ensure
that the long-term benefits of recovery
implementation are not sacrificed for a quick
completion of a recovery plan. In any case, it is
essential that authors of recovery plans
coordinate with all stakeholders.
2.3.2.3 Use of Contractors to Write Recovery
Plans
In some circumstances, it may be more expedient
to hire a contractor to write a recovery plan,
particularly if agency staff are not available.
Contractors hired to write recovery plans may be
affiliated with state conservation agencies,
universities, museums, aquaria, private
conservation organizations or private contracting
businesses with relevant expertise. These
individuals are considered independent scientists
or specialists and are chosen for their expertise.
When writing the plan, they do not represent the
group with which they are otherwise affiliated. A
draft plan does not necessarily reflect the views or
positions of NMFS or any other involved agency.
The plan a contractor submits may be accepted in
full or in part by the Regional or Assistant
Administrator, but the agency is under no
obligation to do so. Contractors are usually hired
through a contractual agreement. As in the case of
agency biologists writing plans, it is imperative
that individuals who are contracted to write a
recovery plan coordinate with stakeholders,
including private landowners, land managers,
users of the areas in which the species occurs, and
other interested parties. In cases where it is
determined not appropriate for a contractor to
coordinate with the stakeholders, NMFS must
carry out these activities appropriately, and the
contract should clarify the roles of the contractor
and NMFS with respect to these activities.
2.3.2.4 Use of Recovery Teams to Write
Recovery Plans
Recovery teams are often used to write recovery
plans, especially when numerous parties have
expertise or interest in the species for which the
plan is being written. Recovery teams can bring
together the diversity of expertise most
appropriate to understanding a particular species’
endangerment and for devising an effective
recovery program. Recovery teams may also
provide stakeholders and jurisdictions (including
State, Tribal, and local governments) the
opportunity to participate in the planning and
implementation of actions necessary to recover
and sustain the listed species; ensure that a
diversity of options for the recovery strategy are
considered; and help to develop plans that are
practical and feasible and that minimize
socioeconomic impacts (although they must lead
to recovery of the species within a reasonable
timeframe).
The decision on whether or not to appoint a
recovery team depends on the specific
circumstances of the species. Generally, teams
are appropriate where there is greater public
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-5
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
interest (i.e., more and diverse stakeholders,
controversial issues) and/or a wider species’
range. Decisions on whether to have a recovery
team and, if so, potential roles of team members
in plan development and implementation may be
addressed in the Recovery Outline (see section
3.0, The Recovery Outline, and Box 2.3.2.4).
Recovery teams have numerous advantages in
that they do the following:
• obtain diverse opinions and ensure
dialogue regarding important recovery
issues;
• increase the depth of expertise
(biological and otherwise) contributing
to plan development;
• provide a mechanism for multiple
agencies and stakeholders to interact;
• address and resolve controversial issues
early in the process;
• impart greater credibility to decisions
made by NMFS regarding the species’
recovery program;
• develop advocates for the recovery
program; and
• facilitate the implementation of recovery
actions.
Disadvantages of recovery teams may include the
following:
• a tendency for unwieldy and
nonproductive meetings, especially if the
team is large or includes persons who
view their special interests as more
important than the recovery of the
species (see section 2.3.3.2, Recovery
Team Composition);
• the investment of considerable energy
and resources;
• difficulties bridging knowledge gaps
among scientists, agency representatives,
and other stakeholders;
• more complications in recovery plan
development due to diverse viewpoints
and sheer number of opinions;
• difficulty managing the dissemination of
information (for example, members may
inadvertently share incomplete or
inaccurate information with the public or
media); and
• potential for misunderstandings if all team
recommendations are not accepted by
NMFS.
Guidance concerning the appointment and
management of recovery teams is provided in
sections 2.3.3, Appointing a recovery team, and
4.2, Managing a Recovery Team.
2.3.2.5 Use of Informal Meetings and Groups
Whether NMFS biologists, contractors or recovery
teams are writing the recovery plan, informal
meetings and groups can be useful to share
information, accomplish planning tasks, explore
multiple points of view, and generate interest in
the planning endeavor (see Box 2.3.2.5). Several
options are provided below:
• Work with experts and interested parties
on a one-to-one basis. Many times, this is
the most productive way for the Recovery
Plan Coordinator and/or for the plan
author to proceed.
• Begin the recovery planning process with
a “kick-off” meeting or workshop in
which experts and other key contributors
can get acquainted, share information and
ideas, express opinions, and help establish
a baseline understanding of the species
with respect to recovery needs and
opportunities.
• Use informal meetings to invigorate the
process at various points during plan
development. These meetings (including
conference calls, video conferencing, or
any other mode of group discussion) can
be task- or topic-oriented; they can help
keep the planning process moving
forward; and they can be more or less
inclusive of individuals with various
expertise and interested parties. Examples
include PVA workshops, meetings to
discuss research findings, single-issue
discussions, meetings with state agencies
to discuss cooperative efforts, and
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-6
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
meetings to review draft
documents.
• Set up informal planning groups, task
forces, topical committees, or
communication networks to address
specific planning issues or to obtain
various types of input.
It should also be recognized that these informal
approaches require a significant degree of
initiative and coordination, which should be
anticipated when developing schedules and
budgets and setting out milestones. Informal
meetings and groups hold the potential for being
much more fluid, inclusive, and focused than
recovery teams, but they are not necessarily less
time consuming. Good communication is all-important,
and follow-up is vital, i.e., meeting
notes should be shared and entered into the
administrative record, and participants should be
apprized of their continuing roles in the planning
process. Also, if the plan is being prepared by a
contractor or other independent party, this
individual should be involved in or kept informed
of all substantive discussions.
Bear in mind that recovery teams and informal
planning meetings or groups are not mutually
exclusive. Recovery team members may join
larger recovery meetings when desired; recovery
teams can work alongside task forces; team
members can be consulted as individual experts,
etc. For any given planning project, the variety of
expertise and richness of experience should be
tapped in the most effective way possible and with
a clear purpose in mind.
Although these less formal avenues for working
with plan contributors and with other planning
partners are more dynamic than a standing
advisory body (like a recovery team - see section
2.3.3) and can provide a means of nurturing strong
working relationships, they cannot function like a
Federal Advisory Committee. According to the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), NMFS
cannot ask for and cannot accept consensus
recommendations; NMFS cannot convene
regularly scheduled meetings with the same group
of invited participants; and none of these groups
or individuals can be given decision making
authority without going through very specific
procedures. It is important to understand the
provisions of FACA before any of the above
options are used. Within this legal constraint,
however, the informal approach can be an
effective way of garnering individual viewpoints
and new information while avoiding some of the
pitfalls associated with recovery teams, e.g.,
conflicts of interest, size limitations, difficulties in
gaining consensus, and the time constraints of
team members.
As an example of the concerns about violating
FACA, in 1994, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld a District Court holding that the combined
findings of several scientists, initially requested
individually by the FWS to assess the current
status of the Alabama sturgeon, constituted a
scientific advisory panel without following FACA
procedures, and there had been a violation of
FACA (Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition v.
Dept. of Interior, 26 F.3d 1103 (11th Cir. 1994)).
Because of this violation, the court upheld an
injunction preventing the FWS from publishing,
employing, and relying on the panel’s report,
either directly or indirectly, to determine whether
to list the Alabama sturgeon. This decision was
made, not because the science was invalid, but
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-7
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
because it was developed and introduced into the
process without following FACA procedures.
2.3.3 Appointing a Recovery Team
2.3.3.1 Statutory and Policy Basis
According to section 4(f)(2) of the ESA, NMFS,
“in developing and implementing recovery plans,
may procure the services of appropriate public
and private agencies and institutions, and other
qualified persons.” Section 4(f)(2) also exempts
appointed recovery teams from the requirements
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA;
see Section 1.2). Most appointed groups whose
purposes are to develop or implement recovery
plans qualify as recovery teams and thus are
exempt from FACA constraints.
Although appointed recovery teams are
specifically exempt from FACA provisions,
outside of the recovery team setting one must
carefully consider the provisions of FACA when
seeking advice or recommendations from more
than one individual at a time in the development
and implementation of recovery plans.
2.3.3.2 Recovery Team Composition
The composition of a recovery team is crucial to
its effectiveness. Team membership and team
size are two key considerations in ensuring a
functional recovery team.
Identification and Selection of Team Members –
Recovery teams usually consist of a Team
Leader, a Team Liaison, and a manageable
number of team members (see Team Size below).
Although diversity of membership is encouraged,
recovery team membership should be based on
relevant expertise, not affiliation, and all
members of the recovery team must be
committed to the recovery of the species in a
timely manner. Team members should be
selected for their knowledge of (1) the species,
closely related species, ecosystem, or relevant
disciplines, e.g., local planning, ecology,
genetics; (2) the threats contributing to the status
of the species, e.g., resource extraction
operations, forestry, hydrology; or (3) various
elements of recovery plan design or
implementation, e.g., land-use planning or
knowledge of alternatives to reduce
socioeconomic effects of implementation. Teams
are to be composed of recognized experts in their
fields and are encouraged to explore all avenues to
achieve recovery. Membership should include
people with experience in managing species and in
restoring and managing habitats. Additional
considerations when selecting team members
include (1) the ability to work together in team
situations and (2) the ability to make time
available to fulfill the needs of the recovery
planning time frames.
Team Leaders and Team Liaisons – Although the
Team Leader and the Team Liaison may be the
same person, the Team Liaison is always a NMFS
employee while, in many cases, the Team Leader
is not a NMFS employee. The individuals in these
positions work closely together to handle logistics
of meetings, communication among members and
between members and the agency, and ensure that
the team stays on schedule. Both must have good
organizational and leadership skill and have the
ability to maintain a productive atmosphere for the
recovery team. The Team Leader particularly is
generally chosen because s/he is well respected
and is considered fair and unbiased. The latter is
especially important for species’ plans that will
involve contentious issues.
Generally, the responsibilities of the Team Leader
include the following:
• Works with the Team Liaison to plan
recovery team meetings
• Chairs and facilitates recovery team
meetings (although a professional
facilitator may be brought in for specific
meetings in which a subject is going to
attract a large number of people or is
particularly contentious, or all meetings, if
necessary)
• Takes a lead on overseeing recovery plan
development
• Works with the team to identify and
recommend priorities for recovery
implementation
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-8
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Generally, the responsibilities of the Team
Liaison include the following:
• Provides guidance to the team regarding
their role and function
• Ensures that the Regional
Administrator’s requests and
recommendations are addressed
• Serves as the conduit through which
recommendations, team minutes, and
other communications to and from the
Regional Administrator are transmitted
• Keeps the Regional Office and
Headquarters informed of team opinions
and positions on critical issues, and
recovery planning progress
• Represents, elicits participation of, and
informs experts in other NMFS programs
(e.g., Habitat Conservation, Sustainable
Fisheries), as appropriate
Team Size – Team size should balance the need
to include diverse expertise and experience with
the need to optimize manageability. In addition
to the previously mentioned advantages of
including a variety of expertise on teams, it has
been suggested that diverse teams, particularly
those with at least one non-federal member, may
result in plans that are more likely to be
implemented and effective (Clark et al. 2002).
However, both Clark et al. (2002) and Gerber and
Schultz (2002) also note that larger teams do not
correlate with better plans or improved status
trends for listed species. Management literature
regarding team size indicates that teams may
consist of two to 25 members (Hiller 1998)
although the size generally suggested for optimal
functioning is five to eight (Baguley 2002,
Harrington-Mackin 1994). More specifically,
Baguley (2002) states that the ideal size for a
well-functioning team is five to seven members
and that no more than ten members should be
appointed to the team if full participation and
involvement is being sought, albeit larger teams
allow a wider range and diversity of skills and
abilities. Harrington-Mackin (1994) sets the
ideal team size for accomplishing multiple,
complex tasks at five to eight members. She
defines small teams as having six to 12 members
and large teams as having 15-25 members. She
cautions that larger teams are generally more
appropriate when they are tasked with a simpler
assignment or when the team is to be subdivided
into specialized functions; in any case, members
of large teams must recognize that they will not
have equal participation in all issues
(Harrington-Mackin 1994). These team size
sideboards are found throughout business
management literature.
There are a variety of options for restructuring the
"traditional" recovery team format for cases where
the number of potential contributors significantly
exceeds the optimal functional team size. Options
include developing: workgroups,
scientific/technical and implementation
subgroups, advisory recovery networks,
core-teams, and technical consultants/technical
advisors (see Appendix G). Experts or
contributors who are primarily involved through
these alternate mechanisms usually address
specific species or habitat issues, rather than large
sections of the recovery plan.
2.3.3.3 Appointing a Recovery Team
Recovery team members are appointed by the lead
Assistant Administrator (with the exception of
NMFS Pacific salmon teams, which are appointed
by the Regional Administrator) with the approval
of the prospective team member's employer. An
appointment letter describing the terms of their
appointment is sent to new members (See
Appendix H for a sample appointment letter).
These terms and other issues regarding team
procedures may be clarified through a Terms of
Reference, which is often distributed and agreed
upon by all members at the first meeting.
The appointment letter does the following:
• Identifies the purposes of the team
(whether to write/revise a plan, guide
recovery implementation etc.)
• Explains that team members serve in an
advisory capacity to the Assistant or
Regional Administrator and are providing
their recommendations and advice in
response to their requests
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-9
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
• Indicates the anticipated duration of the
team
• Clarifies that team members may be
removed or replaced as the focus of the
recovery team changes or if an individual
fails to serve in a contributory and
constructive way
• Clarifies that recovery teams may be
terminated or restructured when their
purpose has been served
• Notes, as appropriate, whether team
members are responsible for their own
travel expenses.
2.3.3.4 Terms of Reference
A Terms of Reference, which describes the team
operating rules, is not mandatory but can be a
very useful document. Generally, the Team
Leader and Team Liaison or Recovery
Coordinator draw up a Terms of Reference in
advance of the first recovery team meeting. The
team then discusses it and proposes changes, if
any. Once finalized, the Terms of Reference
should be agreed to by all team members and the
Regional Administrator (see Appendix I for a
sample Terms of Reference). The specific
contents of the Terms of Reference should be
tailored to each situation and can be finalized in
consultation with the team. This document
serves as an agreement between each member of
the recovery team and NMFS.
The Terms of Reference does the following:
• Clarifies the purposes of the team and
expected products
• Details the responsibilities of NMFS
with respect to the team
• Details the roles of team members, the
Team Leader, and the Team
Liaison/Recovery Coordinator
• Describes the operating rules of the team,
e.g., whether decisions will be made by
consensus (preferable), majority votes,
3/4 majority votes; what percentage of
members form a quorum; if members can
have proxies or must be present, etc.
• Addresses the formation and duties of
sub-committees, workgroups, and other
groups
• Emphasizes the confidentiality of drafts
and internal documents
2.3.4 Developing a Production Schedule
As stated in section 1.5.1, Timeframes, recovery
outlines should be completed within 60 days of
listing and approved within 90 days of listing, and
a draft recovery plan developed within 1.5 years
of listing and a final within 2.5 years of listing. A
schedule for accomplishing various planning
actions and a method for monitoring progress
should be developed. This schedule should
include important meetings (including public
meetings), turnaround times for internal and peer
reviews, and other milestones.
2.3.5 Setting Up the Administrative Record
The administrative record is the paper trail that
shows the basis upon which the agency has made
its decisions, and the procedures that the agency
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-10
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
followed. The administrative record for a
recovery plan consists of all documents and
materials considered by the decision-makers in
making decisions concerning the development
and implementation of the recovery plan,
including those that reflect positions contrary to
the final outcome. Examples of documents that
should be included in the administrative record
include the following:
• Relevant portions of policies, guidelines,
directives, manuals, books, etc.
• Technical information, sampling results,
survey information or other studies,
reports, or scientific articles relating to
the species covered in the plan
• External correspondence relating to the
plan, including communications from
other agencies and the public, and
responses to those communications (E-mails
from those outside the agency
should be printed on paper and included
in the administrative record)
• Notes or minutes of meetings with
stakeholders, invitations and outreach
material
• Transcripts of public hearings and other
meeting notes
• Telephone conversation records, unless
they are personal notes (see below)
• Petitions or other legal documents
received from adversarial groups
• Draft versions of the plan that were
circulated outside the agency
• Federal Register or other notices or
formal documents relating to the plan
• Decision documents
Personal notes written and controlled by
individual staff members solely for their own use
are not included in the administrative record.
NMFS has issued Guidelines for Agency
Administrative Records. These are available at
http://reefshark.nmfs.noaa.gov/f/pds/publicsite/d
ocuments/procedures/30-123-01.pdf .
An administrative record should be established
early in the process of recovery planning and
maintained throughout. A good administrative
record documenting the processes and decisions
involved in developing and implementing a
recovery plan is extremely important; if a recovery
plan is challenged in court, the administrative
record will serve as the basis for court review.
Two laws are particularly relevant to the
establishment and maintenance of an
administrative record – the Administrative
Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) and the Freedom of
Information Act of 1966 (FOIA).
Administrative Procedure Act
The APA sets standards for judicial review of
agency actions and public involvement in a rule-making
process. The APA allows a private party
to challenge the legal sufficiency of any final
“agency action” (under which a final recovery
plan or the decision that a recovery plan would not
promote conservation of the species can be
challenged) or bring a lawsuit for an “agency
action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably
delayed” (under which the failure to complete a
recovery plan in a timely manner can be
challenged). When reviewing the adequacy of a
final recovery plan or decision not to prepare a
plan, a court should uphold the plan or decision
unless it is “ arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of
discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the
law.” In conducting its examination, the court
will consider whether the agency acted within the
scope of its legal authority, whether the agency
adequately explained its decision, whether the
agency based its decision on facts in the record,
and whether the agency considered the relevant
factors. The successful defense of a final recovery
plan or decision not to prepare a plan thus largely
depends upon the adequacy of the agency’s
administrative record.
The APA also requires the publication in the
Federal Register of rules and a period for public
comment. Although a recovery plan does not
come under the public notice and comment
requirements of the APA, the ESA itself requires
public notice and the opportunity for comment.
The adequacy of the public comment process
would be reviewed under APA standards. The
administrative record should document NMFS’
public comment process and that the agency
considered the comments received. Thus, a
Preplanning Considerations 2.3-11
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft plan
must be published in the Federal Register, and
interested parties and the public must be given an
opportunity to comment.
Freedom of Information Act
FOIA states that any person has the right to
request access to federal agency records. Federal
agencies are required to disclose records upon
receiving a written request for them, except for
those records that are protected from disclosure
by the nine exemptions and three exclusions of
the FOIA. This right of access is enforceable in
court. Records include all books, papers, maps,
charts, plans, architectural drawings and
microfilm; all machine-readable material such as
electronic mail, magnetic tape, disks, drums, and
punched cards; all audiovisual material such as
still pictures, sound and video recordings; and all
other documentary materials (including
handwritten notes), regardless of physical form
or characteristics, made by or received by NMFS
pursuant to Federal laws or in connections with
the transaction of public business and preserved
or appropriate for preservation by the Service as
evidence of the organization, functions, policies,
decisions, procedures, operations, or other
activities, or because of the informational value
of the record (44 U.S.C. 2211).
The nine exemptions of FOIA follow:
1. Matters of national defense or foreign
policy
2. Internal personnel rules and practices
3. Information specifically prohibited from
disclosure by other statutes
4. Trade secrets, commercial or financial
information (confidential business
information)
5. Privileged interagency or intra-agency
documents
6. Personal information affecting an
individual’s privacy
7. Records compiled for law enforcement
purposes
8. Records of financial institutions
9. Geological and geophysical information,
including maps, concerning wells
However, if a portion of a record falls within one
of the exempted categories it does not mean that it
is automatically excluded from release (note that
an entire record would rarely fall within an
exemption). If an exemption is to be invoked to
deny access to information, a justification for
withholding the information must be provided -- a
mere assertion that an exemption applies is
insufficient.
It should be noted that any information that has
already been released in some way to the public
can no longer qualify for an exemption.
Generally, once a document has been released to a
non-agency party, it loses its exempted status and
cannot be withheld as a privileged document in
litigation. Although this issue is not necessarily
limited to FOIA, FOIA is a common form of
release. This serves as a reminder to be cognizant
of what gets shared with stakeholders and others
outside the recovery team. However, NMFS
should be able to release agency documents to
recovery team members without waiving their
ability to withhold the documents under FOIA, as
long as team members do not distribute the
documents. Consider whether confidentiality
should be one of the ground rules for the recovery
team. Such documents should be labeled as
confidential and team members should understand
that such documents should not be shared outside
the recovery team process.
Preplanning Considerations 2.4-1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
2.4 Preparing for Stakeholder Involvement
Stakeholders, broadly defined, are those who
have an interest in the recovery of the species or
particular actions taken to recover the species.
Stakeholders can include, but are not limited to,
other programs within NMFS, other government
agencies (Federal, Tribal, State and local),
affected landowners or fishers, academic
scientists, conservation organizations, industries,
or members of the general public. Establishing
relationships with stakeholders as early in the
process as appropriate and feasible is essential to
building a foundation for the stakeholder
involvement that will result in the development
of recovery strategies that are practicable and
likely to be implemented, thus achieving species
recovery.
The recovery outline should include a description
of how and where stakeholders will be involved
in the planning process. This should include
preliminary identification of, and a strategy for
involving, appropriate stakeholders. In most
cases, because of time constraints, formal
stakeholder involvement will likely not begin
until after the outline is complete. Below are
thoughts on how to identify and involve
stakeholders. These should be considered during
the writing of the recovery outline and after the
recovery outline is complete. Stakeholder
involvement should continue throughout the
recovery planning process. Additional
information on involving stakeholders in the
development of a recovery plan is discussed in
section 4.3, Managing Stakeholder Involvement.
2.4.1 Identifying Key Stakeholders
Determining who the relevant stakeholders may
be depends upon the situation and type of
recovery activities that may be needed for the
species. Having the right stakeholders is
essential to developing an effective recovery plan
and realizing its implementation. Stakeholders
who commented on the proposed listing or who
were otherwise involved in the listing process
can form a starting point for identifying
stakeholders. Questions to ask when identifying
relevant stakeholders include the following:
• Who are the people or groups most
dependent on the resources involved?
• Who are the people or groups most
interested in recovering the species?
• Who commented on the proposed listing
or were otherwise involved in the listing
process?
• Who best represents those likely to affect
or be affected by the recovery process?
• Who can help you meet the potential
recovery goal, objectives, and criteria?
• Who is likely to be responsible for actions
required for recovery?
• Who possesses claims, including legal
jurisdiction and customary use, over the
resources involved?
• Who are the people or groups most
knowledgeable about, and capable of
dealing with, the resource issues?
• Who specifically is having an impact on
the conservation of the species?
• Who has been primarily managing the
species and its habitat?
• Have there been similar conservation
initiatives in the area? If successful, who
was in charge and how did stakeholders
participate?
• What stakeholder participation might be
missed without a special effort?
• Who is likely to mobilize for or against
what may be needed?
• Who can make what is intended more
effective through their participation or
less effective by their nonparticipation or
outright opposition?
• Who can contribute financial and
technical resources?
• Who will use the plan to justify funding
requests, e.g., states or other NMFS
programs?
Once a list of potential stakeholders is developed,
the next step is to identify specific individuals or
groups that are willing to participate in the
recovery process. This is best done by learning
how prospective stakeholders are organized and
how they operate, by determining their
relationships to one another; and by understanding
the social, cultural, and institutional factors that
Preplanning Considerations 2.4-2
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
affect the ability of stakeholders to participate. It
may also be useful to disseminate information
about the proposed activity, enabling interested
stakeholders to identify themselves to you.
2.4.2 Options for Stakeholder Participation
NMFS must promote stakeholder participation
early in the recovery process by (1) making
recovery outlines available to the public via
NMFS’ internet sites, (2) providing public
notification regarding the intent to develop a
recovery plan, an anticipated timeline for
recovery planning, the opportunities for
stakeholder involvement in planning and
implementation, and (3) soliciting information
about the recovery needs of the species or ways
to minimize the social and economic impacts of
implementing recovery actions. For newly listed
or recently reclassified species, this can be
accomplished simply by adding language to the
final listing rule. For revisions or previously
listed species without plans, NMFS requires
publishing a Federal Register notice. In all
cases, a notice may also be made available via
NMFS’ internet sites. Other means of ensuring
meaningful stakeholder involvement that should
be considered in the writing of the recovery
outline and beyond include, but are not limited
to, the following:
• Holding public hearings and group
meetings (this involves planning for
adequate funding and time);
• Providing stakeholders with regular
reports from, and an opportunity to
provide regular input to, the recovery
team or other plan writers;
• Asking stakeholders to select the stages
of plan development and issues in which
they wish to be involved, to help them
make most efficient use of their time and
focus their participation on their most
important issues;
• Including stakeholders on subcommittees
set up for particular issues; and
• Including key stakeholders on the
recovery team.
See section 4.3.2, Methods for Involving
Stakeholders, for additional methods to involve
stakeholders.
The Recovery Outline 3.0 - 1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
3.0 The Recovery Outline
Conservation actions for imperiled species can be
initiated before or after a species has been listed
as threatened or endangered. For some species,
conservation needs are outlined prior to listing in
such documents as state conservation
agreements, candidate conservation agreements,
or other management plans and strategies.
Following listing, development begins on
recovery plans, which contain long-term
recommendations for meeting reclassification
(for endangered species) and delisting objectives.
In the interim between listing and recovery plan
approval, the recovery outline provides a
preliminary strategy for conservation that
conforms to the mandates of the ESA. The
recovery outline both guides initial recovery
actions and ensures that future recovery options
are not precluded due to a lack of interim
planning. The recovery outline also lays the
groundwork for recovery planning by
documenting preplanning decisions.
Recovery outlines or their functional equivalent
must be prepared for all newly listed species.
This applies equally to multiple-species and
ecosystem strategies. In addition, for any
previously listed species that lack an approved
recovery plan, a recovery outline must also be
prepared. Ultimately, all listed species will have
a relevant, documented strategy, whether it be a
recovery outline or a recovery plan, that guides
the conservation effort.
The Recovery Outline 3.1 - 1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
3.1 Definition and Purpose
The recovery outline is a succinct, strategic,
document used to direct the recovery effort and
maintain recovery options for a species, group of
species, or ecosystem, pending an approved
recovery plan. Recovery outlines constitute an
important part of the administrative record for
listed species.
The primary function of the recovery outline is to
present a preliminary conservation strategy that
will guide recovery actions in a systematic,
cohesive way until a recovery plan is available.
Its secondary function is to guide and document
preplanning considerations for recovery
planning. If the species is deferred or exempt
from recovery planning (see section 2.2.1,
Exemption from Drafting Recovery Plans), the
recovery outline will act as the main recovery
document.
The recovery outline addresses several needs.
Actions that are urgently needed at the time a
species is listed, as well as actions that constitute
the early steps of prolonged efforts, can be
implemented more effectively and efficiently if
they are treated as integral parts of a rangewide
conservation strategy. By providing a consistent
view of the species’ status and recovery needs,
the recovery outline can also provide a basis for
conducting project reviews under ESA sections 7
and 10. It can also be used by biologists to help
project proponents to avoid narrowing or
precluding future recovery options, e.g., allowing
loss of a portion of habitat that might later be
determined to be extremely important to the
recovery of the species. With respect to critical
habitat, identification of recovery needs can
provide a context for management decisions
within designated areas and inform delineation of
appropriate habitat for future designation. Using
the recovery outline as an organizational tool for
both guiding and recording preplanning decisions
(see section 2.0, Preplanning Considerations)
will help expedite the recovery planning process,
particularly in terms of thinking ahead about who
will be involved in recovery plan preparation and
how stakeholders can most effectively be
involved in the planning and implementation
process, if applicable.
When developing a recovery outline, keep in mind
its practical uses as a hands-on guide to action and
as a preplanning document. The recovery outline
should be as concise as possible, although length
and level of detail will vary among species. It
should be prepared with the users in mind, i.e.,
those biologists, managers, and decision makers
who will be implementing recovery actions. The
recovery outline is not meant in any way to detract
from the recovery planning process; it should not
become a de facto recovery plan, nor should it
deter efforts to expedite the recovery planning
process.
The Recovery Outline 3.2 - 1
NMFS Interim Recovery Planning Guidance
3.2 Contents of the Recovery Outline
The contents of the recovery outline are divided
into four major components: introduction,
recovery needs assessment, preli